Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

justthisbloke

Conspiracy Or Lunacy? Convicted Judge. Story With Everything

Recommended Posts

Following a link in another thread, I found myself reading this story

http://ukcriminallawblog.com/2014/11/25/michael-shrimpton-barrister-and-part-time-judge-convicted-of-bomb-hoax/

The defence is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/219272953/Michael-Shrimpton-Defence-Case-Statement-Filing-Southwark-Crown-Court-3-6-2014

Sentencing is, understandably, delayed awaiting a psychological report!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the ordinary course of events each call, having been made on a digital telephone exchange, would have been recorded by Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) under the Echelon system, the Defendant‟s voiceprint being held by GCHQ, the American National Security

Agency (NSA)and other Allied signals intelligence agencies under the „Five Eyes‟ intelligence-sharing arrangements.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same guy?

Michael Shrimpton is described on The Intelligence Summit website as "a barrister specialising in national security and intelligence law, who negotiated the national security aspects of the Pinochet case with the late Lt-General Vernon Walters, formerly Deputy Director of the CIA."[1][2]

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Michael_Shrimpton

Strangely, no mention of Gold.

Part time judge doesn't mean much - mostly semi-employed lawyers who deal with paperwork on day rates. Yes, justice on the cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like he published a book, earlier in the year, that claimed Ted Heath was a paedophile.

If he is batshit it seems a strange case to pursue against him and hardly in the public interest. Also, If he's batshit, then he must have believed it, even if delusional or naive, ergo he was acting in good faith. Otherwise it's a massive deterrent to any member of the public to report anything they're suspicious of, if it later proves untrue.

Reminiscent of the Danny Nightingale court martial where he was tried on the strength of a prosecution witness's testimony. Then said prosecution witness's ex-in-laws pop up and say he threatened their daughter, and told them the SAS bumped off Diana, then all of a sudden he's a mentally unstable nutjob.

Don't get me wrong, there's a load of delusional fantasist nutters out there but I'm less convinced by this idea that people can slip in and out of this mentally unstable state depending on whether they saying what people want to hear, or not.

Some of the Judge's comments do also seem like they could have come straight from Dr Zaius in The Planet Of The Apes trial, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting snippet from his defence:

The Defendant correctly categorised the 7/7 terrorists as non-suicide bombers within two weeks of the attacks and so informally briefed in West Midlands Police Special Branch at the first specialist conference on the 7/7 attacks, held at the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall on 26th July 2005.

The Defendant also warned the Metropolitan Police, at or around midnight on 19/7, after a SO12 (Special Branch) officer visited his then home on Watermead, near Aylesbury, about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack on the London Underground on 22/7. The police failure to act on this warning placed dozens if not hundreds of lives at risk. In the events which happened the al Qaeda terrorists were concerned that their detonators had been rigged for immediate detonation, as on 7/7, and withdrew them from the explosives.

The Defendant correctly appreciated that Jean Charles de Menezes was not an electrician but a rogue

Brazilian intelligence officer, ex ABIN, who was working for al Qaeda as a mercenary electronics expert. If the prosecution wish to assert that he was working as an electrician in London they are challenged to say where and to produce evidence. MI5, MI6 and GCHQ all hold relevant files on de Menezes, which should be produced.

He either is very well connected as he claims or he has a very vivid imagination or he is a disinformation agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My gut says fantasist nutter but, in that case, I can't understand why he's not been left to pollute the internet with his drivel and, when tired of that, shout it to pigeons in the park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more surprised that such a nexus of all conspiracy theories hasn't featured on this board before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more surprised that such a nexus of all conspiracy theories hasn't featured on this board before.

the housing market, its props, its finance and the motives behind it all provide all the conspiracy we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

This is the guy that also claims that Madeleine McCann was abducted by the German secret service and smuggled aboard a U-boat to become the personal plaything of Jose Manuel Barroso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more surprised that such a nexus of all conspiracy theories hasn't featured on this board before.

Rest assured, he has.

Specifically, the already mentioned assertion that the German secret service operates a fleet of reconditioned Type XXI U-boats, which shuttle across the Atlantic, laden with drugs and pre-pubescent children

He had a regular column of pompous, unsubstantiated ramblings in that bastion of on-line truth Veterans Today.

Shrimpton strikes me as a genuine mentalist. The people behind Veterans Today don't and are presumably having a laugh at someone's expense, very possibly its readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His defence seems to rely on him having solved every conspiracy theory since the Kennedy assassination.

It makes for a fascinating read, and I'm inclined to take him at his word, on the balance of probability :ph34r:

If he's talking out of his hat then it should be a straightforward task to supply multiple witnesses and other proofs to discredit his assertions.

I don't buy the line that he's mentally ill, again, until such time that evidence is produced to suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shrimpton strikes me as a genuine mentalist.

I agree that this may well be the case, I haven't paid close enough attention or researched enough to fully commit to an opinion either way. I was vaguely aware of his claims RE Maddie and the Germans, and it does seem fantastical. But if he's a mentalist, then he's a very high-functioning one, and one with various contacts high up in the intelligence communities, by the sounds of it.

And if his claims about the British Royals or Barroso are simply delusional flights of fancy, I personally wonder why hasn't he had to face multiple libel cases, given the outspoken and widely publicised nature of his claims...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes for a fascinating read, and I'm inclined to take him at his word, on the balance of probability :ph34r:

If he's talking out of his hat then it should be a straightforward task to supply multiple witnesses and other proofs to discredit his assertions.

I don't buy the line that he's mentally ill, again, until such time that evidence is produced to suggest otherwise.

Are we talking about his assertions in general or the japes he was prosecuted for?

My attitude is if someone makes a claim, they need to back it up in some way. Placing the emphasis on someone to disprove unsubstantiated assertions is the wrong way round and heading into Russell's Teapot territory impo.

Earlier on this morning I selected a random article from Shrimpton's VT back catalogue to reacquaint myself with the old Shrimpton magic...

The Truth Behind D-Day

None of the leaders on parade last week was prepared to acknowledge the truth behind D-Day. As revealed in Spyhunter it was a carve-up. The date June 6th was chosen by Erwin Rommel, to coincide with his wifes birthday. This gave him an excuse not to be there....

So nothing to do with the weather, moon or tides then.

It's difficult to know where, even as a fairly open-minded sort, sympathetic to historical revision, to start to explain just how much b*ll*cks that piece is. A quicker way might be to point out that an article which purports to explain what really happened in WW2, published in the US' 'leading veterans publication', includes this picture captioned as General George Patton...

10emsmt.jpg

Wrong Patton, wrong war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that this may well be the case, I haven't paid close enough attention or researched enough to fully commit to an opinion either way. I was vaguely aware of his claims RE Maddie and the Germans, and it does seem fantastical. But if he's a mentalist, then he's a very high-functioning one, and one with various contacts high up in the intelligence communities, by the sounds of it.

And if his claims about the British Royals or Barroso are simply delusional flights of fancy, I personally wonder why hasn't he had to face multiple libel cases, given the outspoken and widely publicised nature of his claims...?

As mentioned above, I suspect he probably is a mentalist but he is given space by people who I do not think are mentalists. A possible motive would be to help fill the internet up with confusing nonsense, not that it really needs any help in that regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we talking about his assertions in general or the japes he was prosecuted for?

My attitude is if someone makes a claim, they need to back it up in some way. Placing the emphasis on someone to disprove unsubstantiated assertions is the wrong way round and heading into Russell's Teapot territory impo.

I was referring to his published defence. I haven't read much else of his (if anything, memory fails).

No, you're right, it is putting the cart before the horse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of people, some famous authors who get difficulty in distinguishing between fact and fantasy.

They are used to gathering material from all sorts of sources and then joining it together to make a fascinating story. It has been reported of them that some begin to believe that their constructed story actually happened.

Novelists in particular do not write for the public, they write for themselves and are constantly telling themselves stories.

Shrimpton is a trained barrister and can write very clearly and well.

My guess is that he has either received genuine information in the case in hand or imagined it and now believes it.

Whether all the other intelligence community connections he claims are true can easily be verified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

But is he really a paedophile? The predictable discovery of a small amount of questionable material does seem to be a bit.... coincidental. But then, of course, he would say that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is he really a paedophile? The predictable discovery of a small amount of questionable material does seem to be a bit.... coincidental. But then, of course, he would say that.

Dodgy jpg allegations appear to be practically mandatory these days.

There's always the possibility that amongst all the spout he hit a nerve somewhere along the line.

BTW this character is not a theorist as such. He's one of those types who *knows* the answers; no caveats, no qualifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW this character is not a theorist as such. He's one of those types who *knows* the answers; no caveats, no qualifications.

Yes, that was evident when reading his defence - he's not shy about blowing his own trumpet, name dropping and listing his high-profile activities, hobnobbing with the great and good of international politics and intelligence. The fact that he seemingly knows everything, and others are, with respect, not nearly intelligent enough or do not have the sufficient level of security clearance, is not endearing.The ego is strong in this one.

Doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong though. While I accept that it's possible that he may just be collecting various theories from the internet and cobbling them together into some strange fictitious grand plot, his comments on the 7/7 bombers and de Menezes, for example, do ring true for me. Any cursory examination of 7/7 shows a whole host of anomalies that demand explanation, and it smacks of security service involvement, if not explicit coordination. The official narratives about these events, among many others, have always smelt incredibly fishy to me, and so that's why I am perhaps inclined to believe that his narrative is at least partly true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong though. While I accept that it's possible that he may just be collecting various theories from the internet and cobbling them together into some strange fictitious grand plot, his comments on the 7/7 bombers and de Menezes, for example, do ring true for me. Any cursory examination of 7/7 shows a whole host of anomalies that demand explanation, and it smacks of security service involvement, if not explicit coordination. The official narratives about these events, among many others, have always smelt incredibly fishy to me, and so that's why I am perhaps inclined to believe that his narrative is at least partly true.

As is the official narrative. So, where does that leave us? It's a fundamental quality of disinformation that it is constructed to blend fact and fiction as seamlessly as possible.

(In the absence of sources) There's no way of distinguishing valid material from bullcr@p in the narratives characters like Shrimpton put out. So, as far as I'm concerned better to cut them out entirely and seek out folk who think rationally, present evidence and reach conclusions only as firm as that evidence supports.

In the case of 7/7, for example, most people I run into who are sceptical about the official narrative repeat some easily debunked factoids and are unaware of other, better supported issues. They've been mis, and shallowly, informed and for the most part it'd be a piece of cake to role play as an official narrative supporter and tear them to bits.

wrt 7/7, Tom Secker's made his book on the attacks available as a freebie on one of his websites - Secrets, Spies and 7/7. If you're interested in the flaws and omissions in the official narrative it's worth reading imho. It's full of references to source documents, the results of FOIA requests, testimony, hearing transcripts, boring old stuff like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting snippet from his defence:

He either is very well connected as he claims or he has a very vivid imagination or he is a disinformation agent.

Might see a lot more of that in times to come. Call a conspiracy theory that bring in highly-secret or sensitive information to your defence. Amongst the possible outcomes, you hope for (1), or other favourable variants:

  1. Judge says secret information MUST be disclosed for trial to go ahead. It isn't. Trial halted, suspect acquitted.
  2. Judge says secret information MUST be disclosed for trial to go ahead. Sufficient information disclosed to judge to enable trial to go ahead. Bluff successfully called, but jury still not necessarily satisfied.
  3. Judge calls BS, trial goes ahead. Jury might take either side on the matter, and the judge denying you part of the defence could be grounds for appeal.

[edit] ouch, the longer version of "BS" triggered the HPC censor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.