Peter Murrell embezzlement trial

[Sunnnyday]

Peter Murrell is in court in Edinburgh today. This is for the preliminary hearing which was postponed from before the election. It will be interesting to see how the criminal proceedings proceed.

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/peter-murrell-arrives-at-court-ahead-of-hearing-on-embezzlement-charges/ar-AA23Ybuy?ocid=msedgntp&pc

The SNP are not going to mount a civil case against Sturgeon to get the stuff back. No way.

Just read through the list of stuff which was discounted by the courts. There are a lot of consumables on there, things like coffee beans, pen refills, make up, whisky, candles, chocolates, light bulbs etc. Things they have no hope of getting back.

Also some things leap out - he buys a LOT of gloves. And multiples of different things, the Lalique salt and pepper set hit the headlines but he bought several other sets too. Can't all be for their household so who else was getting them?

Huge amounts of loo rolls purchased too.

Yes, several people (on here and elsewhere) keep pretending that £80,000 per year (under £5k per month after tax) buys you a lifestyle of luxury and excess, when it very much doesn’t.

If I were betting by on £80k I’d not be spending what he did.

When asked to respond to the criticism from Thomson of his latest client he replied: “Michelle who?”

Although I don't share Michelle Thomson's politics she was one of the few MSP"s of any intelligence and one of the few one might have heard of as being good at her job.

Also £70 on "poems by Douglas Young".
So many storage boxes and organisers and pens and refills.

This response (you see it a lot on MN or under Times articles as well) always makes me think the person using it needs to grow up.

I always think that the person is ignorant - if they aren't aware of what's going on around them then I can't take them seriously.

I think it's meant as a put down "this person isn't important enough for me to pay attention to who they are". If they'd honestly didn't know who it is they could google them.

Oh I know how they intend it to come over that way - but it doesn't. It just makes them look thick, like they're aren't aware of the world around them or don't know how to use the internet.

I write to my Labour MSP regularly and he’s been excellent at bumping my child up the CAMHS waiting list and ensuring a new zebra crossing was installed (gave the council a kick up the arse). Maybe SNP MSPs are happy just to give some pre-approved blah blah blah but I’d recommend other parties MSPs that can be really effective as they are keener prove themselves by genuinely helping..

Very true. I was at uni at the same time as AA and he was a publicity seeking little prick even then. However I will give him credit for fighting for blind marking.

So, PM has sold his villa in Portugal but still qualified for legal aid. Timing is everything it seems.

Iain MacWhirter in the Times today linking it to the Salmond case:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/06574588-eef9-4a85-b32e-0c4c6db2d95f?shareToken=1818beff39b69a818d5da651e7b27ab6&ver=article

Interesting. It really all stinks, doesn’t it?

It really does @Helpmaboa

This whole sorry saga is shameful. I heard NS last Sunday and she only stopped playing the victim when Laura asked about her having to sell her house. She got really annoyed as though the house wasn’t anything to do with the case.

And what is it about her pants? I saw the 2 Dyson hairdryers (for a bald man!) Bet Nicola is using one..

Some of the items removed from the charge sheet were ladies sloggi knickers.

There seem to have been an awful lot of items relived from the charge sheet that were likely to have been bought for her.

This does seem strange. If he was bang to rights (is it bang or banged?) then why remove those items?

It would have been negotiated between the lawyers…back and forth…by getting Murrell to admit to two thirds of the purchases, the prosecution have materially “enough” to confirm his guilt and secure an appropriate sentence. The cost and time of going after the remaining items would unlikely be worth the benefit or materially alter his sentence.

I suspect he thinks he was being clever in excluding a bunch of items which would be assumed to be for Nicola, but I think that has backfired badly for them…it’s turned into the story that keeps giving. First of all there was plenty in the “admitted” list which is clearly for Nicola and they had a few days of embarrassing reporting to contend with there. Then the “denied” list was reported and has just reopened the debate again, but with a further bad press that the depths of their willingness to try and coverup and hide the truth knows no bounds. I don’t believe anyone really believes it was “just” the £400k worth of items, and if they do believe that, then they are utter fools.

More in the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/0ba77cd1-77c0-4d52-a39e-286653b29a57?shareToken=8fcb1eddd8921365b5c5ed47a9643dc1&ver=article

That’s really interesting, @Igneococcus

This bit in particular made me think

“The fathers and the mothers of the Scottish parliament set up a structure which was not supposed to have the possibility of one-party government. In fact, we have been led into a position in Scotland where the political regime has been more long-lasting than the vast majority of UK parliaments.”

So if it looks like he embezzled £600k but is only charged with £400k does he keep the goods he bought with the other £200k?

Well, someone does...

And us Scottish taxpayers are footing the bill since he somehow qualified for legal aid. It's all so corrupt and stinks to high heaven.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/peter-murrell-legal-aid-bill-37268346

Predictions on the sentence???