1

IN THE CROWN COURT AT SOUTHWARK

T20137119

B E T W E E N:-

R E G I N A

- and –

M I C H A E L S H R I M P T O N, E S Q U I R E

__________________________________________

D E F E N C E C A S E S T A T E M E N T

____________________________________________

Defences

1. At all material times the Defendant acted in complete good faith, as a good citizen

should, drawing to the attention of the proper authorities intelligence which came into his

possession, via prosecution witness Neil Jones (page 129), whose good faith in the matter is

not disputed. The intelligence indicated a potential nuclear or radiological threat to the

Games of the XXX Olympiad (“the London Games”), with surface detonation and a Ground

Zero within 2.5 miles of the Olympic Stadium in East London. The intelligence appears to

have been passed to Mr Jones via multiple sources, including a cut-out in Belgrade and the

2

respected intelligence commentator Benjamin Fulford in Tokyo. It followed published

threats by the al Qaeda terrorist organisation of a catastrophic (“Level Three”) attack against

the United Kingdom during the Games period, specifically mentioning London as the target

city.

2. As an illustration of his good faith, the Defendant used his best endeavours to try and

verify the intelligence before contacting the authorities. The approach to the Secretary of

State for Defence, in his capacity as a member of the National Security Council of the United

Kingdom, was on the informal advice of a retired Director-General of Intelligence, Air

Marshal Sir John Walker, whom the Defendant contacted on his mobile telephone. The

Defendant was known to the Air Marshal, a distinguished air intelligence officer and former

commander of a nuclear strike wing. The actus reus of the offence is not made out in respect

of either count in the indictment. No positive assertions as to the presence of an Improvised

Nuclear Device (IND) in London were made in either call, i.e. the intelligence was qualified.

The notes of the conversations are inaccurate to the point of being garbled. The note by Mr

Barry Burton of the MOD was not made until the following day and the note by Ms Sarah

Sproat is little more than a summary on a „Post-It‟ note. 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. On the balance of probabilities recordings of both calls are being withheld by

GCHQ from the CPS in order to prejudice the defence. On balance the Director GCHQ

probably has the sanction of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, to withhold this

material evidence from the CPS, the Defendant and the court. The Defendant respectfully

3

adopts the conclusions of Benjamin Fulford (www.Veterans Today.com, already disclosed)

that (1) the Cabinet Secretary reports to the Director General Operations 2 (GO2) and (2) the

current Director GO2 is Sir John Scarlett, former Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service

(MI6).

3. The intelligence briefing to the MOD, which it was intended to back up with a

briefing to the Foreign Secretary, hence the call to David Lidington MP‟s agent, was

substantially accurate and was confirmed by radiation signature readings taken by US

military satellites, probably KH-13s, of the National Reconnaissance Office, in low earth

orbit between 2200 hours Zulu (GMT) and 0100 hours Zulu on 20th

/21st April 2012. These

readings, which were downloaded to a ground station near Fort Belvoir, Virginia, USA,

indicated that a source of weapons-grade plutonium was present adjacent to, then on, the

Blackwater River Estuary in Essex. This Satellite Intelligence (SATINT) is consistent with

reporting of a viable IND being removed from the UK by a German SSK. The SATINT

would have been made available to GCHQ as a matter of course under the UKUSA

(originally BRUSA) Intelligence Treaty and on balance is probably being withheld from the

CPS, the defence and court. The intelligence was also confirmed in broad terms in

November 2012 at the Lancaster House GICNT seminar, the Powerpoint presentations of

which should be disclosed (the Defendant has learnt from several of the participants that there

were no formal papers).

The Nature and Sources of the Defendant’s Intelligence Expertise

4

4. As set out in Part 1 of Spyhunter the Defendant is an intelligence and national security

specialist, as confirmed by the amount of intelligence material in his possession when his

new flat was unlawfully raided by Thames Valley Police. Since nothing of evidential

significance to the prosecution, save for one Exhibit (AAH/4, a notebook), which simply

confirms the point made in paragraph 2 supra, as it listed a number of people and agencies

via whom the Defendant was trying to verify the intelligence, or vice versa, the Defendant

does not intend making an application under PACE s.78 to exclude any of the illegally seized

material. The Defendant has never held himself out as an intelligence officer. If the

prosecution wish to assert that he has made such a claim they must call the person who

alleges that claim was made to him or her, i.e. objection will be taken at trial to inadmissible

hearsay statements.

5. The Defendant has advised and represented intelligence officers, including “Juliet

Lima”, now living in West Palm Beach, Florida, USA, from whom the prosecution has taken

a statement and whose connection to the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was

acknowledged in interview. He has had an article published in a specialist peer-reviewed

intelligence publication, the respected Journal of International Security Affairs, whose then

Editor, the late Ambassador Harvey Feldman, had long-standing links to the CIA. He has

also been invited to speak at intelligence conferences, including the Intelligence Conference

(INTELCON) at Crystal City, Virginia, USA in February 2005, the Intelligence Summit, at

the same venue (the Hyatt Crystal City) in 2006 and the Intelligence Conference at

Gregynog, Wales in 2013. He has also taught the subject, online, using an encrypted online

teaching programme called “Educator”, at Masters Degree level, as a member of the Adjunct

Faculty at the American Military University and has recently written an intelligence text,

Spyhunter: The Secret History of German Intelligence. The Defendant has also acted as

5

Human Intelligence (HUMINT) source for a number of Western intelligence and law

enforcement agencies, including the Metropolitan Police. In 2010 the Defendant provided

accurate intelligence about memory sticks holding raw intelligence data being in the

possession of the murdered GCHQ officer Dr Gareth Williams to Detective Chief Inspector

Jackie Sebire, who led the police investigation into Dr Williams‟s death. The facts that he

was murdered and was in possession of memory sticks were subsequently confirmed at the

inquest into his death. The Defendant was about two years ahead of any other HUMINT

source to the Met on the memory sticks.

6. The Defendant has also been consulted by the media on inter alia intelligence matters,

including by the makers of the BBC TV series Spooks. The attempt to denigrate him by

Kudos may simply reflect an anxiety not to lose contracts from the BBC, which pays for a

substantial amount of Kudos Productions‟ output. The hearsay opinions about him attributed

to the Spooks scriptwriters are not accepted and the prosecution are put to strict proof of

them.

7. The Defendant has visited inter alia the Department of Defense (Pentagon) and the

White House in Washington DC. He has conferred at the Pentagon with inter alia Deputy

Secretary of Defense Gordon England, military advisers to Defense Secretary Donald

Rumsfeld and the Director of the Office of Net Assessment, Dr Andrew Marshall. Pace the

with respect intelligence illiterate assertions of the officers in interview Dr Marshall remained

at the Pentagon well beyond retirement aged (he is presently aged over 90). The most

powerful intelligence officer in the Pentagon, Vice-President Cheney and Defense Secretary

Rumsfeld were protégés of his. The Defendant successfully represented the late General

6

Pinochet Ugarté in negotiations in Washington DC in 1999/2000 designed to secure the

general‟s release from house arrest in the United Kingdom, in breach of the United

Kingdom‟s international obligation of comity with the Republic of Chile, of which the

general was a former Head of State.

8. The CIA and the White House were represented informally in those negotiations by

the late Lieutenant-General Vernon Walters, formerly Deputy Director and briefly Acting

Director of the CIA. An exceedingly high-powered individual General Walters acted as an

advisor to every American President from Harry S. Truman onwards. He was heavily

involved in the arrangements for the Paris Peace Talks which concluded US involvement as a

belligerent in the Vietnam War, and advised President Richard Nixon in respect of the US

rapprochement with the People‟s Republic of China (PRC). During the course of the

Pinochet negotiations the Defendant was invited to lunch by Ambassador (as he became)

John Bolton. That lunch was held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Ambassador

Bolton, subsequently, was gracious enough to invite the Defendant to attend the

Ambassador‟s swearing in as Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International

Security Affairs by Justice Thomas of the United States Supreme Court, at the State

Department in Washington, in 2001. Thames Valley Police are well aware of this as they

rang the Defendant on his mobile phone following an incursion by gypsies onto land in

Aylesbury, Bucks in which he held a moiety interest, and the Defendant took the call just as

his limousine arrived at the State Department.

9. On February 2006 the Defendant was flown out to the nuclear-powered aircraft

carrier USS Enterprise (CVN-65) in the North Atlantic in a Grumman Greyhound C-2

7

Carrier On Board Delivery (COD) aircraft, as part of the of the United States Navy‟s

Distinguished Visitor Program. The Defendant was invited to a one on one working

breakfast with a Flag Officer. The matters discussed must of necessity remain confidential,

on the grounds of national security, not least as none of the Thames Valley Police (TVP)

officers or CPS officials involved in this prosecution, with respect, has a sufficiently high

security clearance. Whilst it is not unknown for a British civilian, not connected to the

government nor a member of the intelligence services, to be flown onto and catapulted off an

American nuclear carrier it is not an everyday occurrence

Intelligence Successes in which the Defendant has participated.

10. The Defendant is well used to working with others in the broader Allied Intelligence

Community (INTELCOM) and freely acknowledges that others have participated in some of

the intelligence successes identified below. In relation to Operation Vulcan he has never

denied that he worked as part of a team, loosely defined. That does not mean that there was

direct contact between members of the team. Given the level of intelligence monitoring of

the Defendant‟s phone lines and e-mail no intelligence source or officer could contact him by

electronic means including via digital telephone exchange without exposing their identity to

inter alia GCHQ, Siemens, the covert German Deutsches Verteidigungs Dienst intelligence

agency and GO2. The Defendant respectfully adopts the statement in the Washington Post

for 9th

June 2013, commenting on the NSA‟s Prism programme (which the Defendant

supports) that “intelligence analysts are typically taught to chain through contacts two “hops”

out from their target.” The context is admittedly different, but applies just as well to the

deniable supply of intelligence by an agency wishing to remain in the background. It follows

8

a fortiori that the telephone call tracing exercise carried out TVP was with respect pointless.

The fact that public money was wasted on it at all simply reflects with respect the intelligence

illiteracy of the officers involved.

11. 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.

12. In relation to nuclear threats and nuclear terrorism Operation Vulcan was the

Defendant‟s fifth success. In August 2000, as set out in Spyhunter, he correctly appreciated

that al Qaeda were seeking to acquire weapons-grade U-235 uranium from a covert source in

the Philippines. That was the background to the fax to the Defendant on 24th

August 2000

9

from Dr Henry Kissinger, which TVP have. Since U-235 would only be used in a Level 3

catastrophic attack and the only one in the planning stages in August 2000 was 9/11 it is a

reasonable inference that al Qaeda and the DVD originally planned to leverage the 9/11

attacks with Improvised Radiological Devices (IRDs). The relevant US files will have been

made available to MI6 under the UKUSA arrangements.

13. The Defendant also correctly appreciated that the scientific intelligence officer Dr

David Kelly CMG was murdered and that the motive for his murder, by GO2, was to prevent

him passing on to his contacts in Tel Aviv the fact that President Chirac of France, at German

request, had covertly shipped, by SSK, several quantities of weapons-grade plutonium from

the covert French stockpile. The Defendant further appreciated, and so advised the proper

Israeli security authorities, the National Nuclear Safety Administration in the US and

Mohammed el-Baradei, then the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in

Vienna, that the Iranian enriched uranium programme was an intelligence blind and that Iran

was in possession of operational, plutonium-cored, nuclear warheads. These conclusions are

disputed within INTELCOM but the Defendant stands by them and notes that both the United

States and Israel abandoned plans for a first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. So far as

the Defendant is aware his conclusions are now widely accepted by intelligence agencies

throughout the Middle East.

14. After the Defendant became aware that Dr Kelly, along with David Cameron, then a

Conservative Central Office official and now First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister,

accompanied UK-manufactured nuclear weapons casings to South Africa, suitable for the

South African Blackburn B-103 Buccaneer S. Mk 50 delivery system, with its unique rotary

10

bomb-bay, and that three of the SA weapons were supplied in turn to Iraq and the Iran he

correctly appreciated a possible threat to Houston, Texas. The SA weapons were covert,

since the Republic of South Africa was officially not a nuclear-armed state, and the weapons

were designed for easy covert shipment in a standard ISO container with rails welded to the

floor, using a cradle designed by a British engineering firm. Since they could easily be

shipped in a container they were a security nightmare, since any Iranian-flagged container

ship could deliver a device to any port in the Western world. If the containers were lead-

lined, as they would be bound to be, detection would be difficult, until the advent of muon

tomography, partly inspired by this very threat.

15. The Defendant‟s appreciation that Houston was a possible target was probably

correct. After he so advised the FBI he was invited into a meeting in the FBI Houston Field

Office in February 2005, driving there from Los Angeles, via meetings with inter alia the

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in Tuscon, Arizona (a DEA Supervisor involved in

that meeting, India India, now retired, kindly agreed to take a call from the second officer in

the case, DS Mottau, who has refused to speak to him, evidence the Defendant says of TVP‟s

bad faith and unwillingness to due diligence the Defendant‟s statements). There was Iranian

intelligence (VEVAK) activity on the ground in Houston and the nearby port of Galveston.

One of these weapons was probably detonated by North Korea, confirming the theoretical

yield of 15 kilotons (KT). The Defendant‟s appreciation that a 15KT detonation in a

container ship moored in Galveston harbour would significantly damage Houston, home to a

large part of America‟s energy sector, was correct. The Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS),

MI5, MI6 and GCHQ all have files on these weapons. The then Chief of the Defence Staff,

Lord Boyce, may be able to confirm to the Attorney-General, it being a matter entirely for

him, that British Special Forces were charged with intercepting these devices on the ground,

11

near the Iraq/Syrian frontier, shortly before the Iraq War, at a time when the weapons were

under the control of the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

16. In 2010/11 the Defendant correctly appreciated the possibility that one or more of

these devices might be used by Iran to threaten the London Games, by mooring a container

ship downstream of the Thames Barrier in the Thames Estuary, where the blast radius would

pose a threat to the Olympic Stadium. This appreciation seems to have been shared by

Admiral Lord West of Spithead (page 122).

17. In 2007 the Defendant correctly appreciated that Madeleine McCann‟s kidnap was

sponsored by the German DVD, whose existence is acknowledged by Commodore English

(page 132). As a matter of law the prosecution may not traduce the evidence of their own

witness, not least as intelligence is a highly specialist area, requiring high IQ, the CPS

officials and TVP officers involved with the case with respect lack any meaningful

intelligence expertise or experience whatsoever and none of them is qualified to contradict

the Commodore on matters falling within his specialist area of expertise. The largely

inadmissible smear report circulated by Leicestershire Police contains outright fabrications,

including the false claim that an officer of Leicestershire Police spoke with Major-General

Julian Thompson, RM (ret‟d). The willingness of TVP Special Branch to adopt these smears

without putting the allegations to the Defendant or checking them with respect drags down

their credibility as well.

12

18. GCHQ, MI5, MI6 and DIS all have relevant files on the McCann kidnap and murder.

The Pentagon and CIA files will also be available under the UKUSA arrangements. The

current Metropolitan Police inquiry is a farce with respect and arguably a cruel hoax upon the

poor parents, who have been systematically and cruelly misled by the police, who are partly

responsible for their daughter‟s murder. The Cabinet Office and intelligence services are

perfectly well aware that the poor girl was murdered in or around December 2008, and that

her photograph was sent via e-mail to Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European

Commission, who selected her for kidnap and sexual abuse. GCHQ have a copy of the e-

mail, with Madeleine‟s photograph annexed as a JPEG file, which was intercepted by the

NSA at the e-maul switching centre at RAF Minwith Hill, Yorkshire. It should of course be

disclosed. The Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, was probably aware that she had been

located to a high degree of probability on board the MV Naomi Corlett in Moroccan

territorial waters. The rescue mission proposed by Gerard Group International LLC, on

whose Advisory Board the Defendant then sat, was blocked, it would seem for political

reasons, as the UK Government was fearful of the damage which would be done to Anglo-

European relations by the exposure of the President of the European Commission as an active

paedophile, and moreover one who was being blackmailed by the most powerful German

intelligence agency (the DVD), who were supplying him with kidnapped toddlers to abuse, in

order to satiate his perverted sexual desires. Leicestershire Police are suppressing inter alia

an e-mail to them from the Cabinet Office, annexing a chain e-mail from the Foreign Office,

complaining about the Defendant‟s level of access to IMINT and Communications

Intelligence/Intercept (COMINT) material. The Defendant respectfully asserts this is being

done for fear of the credibility it would give the Defendant.

13

19. The Defendant correctly appreciates that terrorism is a state-sponsored phenomenon.

He took a leading role in making the link between 9/11 and Iraq, in particular in identifying

the terrorist training facility in Iraq (Salman Pak) where the 9/11 pilots were trained and the

equipment on which they were trained (a Boeing 767 simulator seized from Kuwait Airways

in August 1990). GCHQ are well aware of this intelligence, as relevant NRO/NSA IMINT

was passed to them, but have chosen to suppress it. The Defendant did offer to give evidence

to the Chilcot Inquiry but with respect its report is likely to be a whitewash. TVP, and UK

police in general, are prevented by doctrinal constraints from dealing with Level 3 terrorist

attacks. Viewing terrorism as a spontaneous phenomenon carried out by groups with a

grievance, real or imagined, as they do, with respect they are unable to grasp that successful

terrorist organisations are backed by intelligence agencies. They also fail to grasp that

terrorist attacks in the UK are normally assisted from the inside by GO2. This helps explain

their with respect pathetic failure to get to grips with the IRA‟s murderous campaign and a

whole series of policing failures, including the Brighton Bombing, where they nearly

managed to lose the Prime Minister. The police at best are only able to deal with a Level 2

attack, almost invariably after the event, as policing in the UK, unlike the USA after 9/11, is

not intelligence led. With a nuclear/radiological attack the police with respect are hopelessly

out of their depth, indeed at best can only be spectators. The official counter-terrorist

strategy, CONTEST, is with respect risibly inadequate and calculated to perpetuate the

failures of the campaign against the IRA, such as it was.

20. The Defendant also correctly appreciated that Osama bin Laden was not personally

religious, i.e. that his public image was a front. In coming to that conclusion he was

informed by his knowledge, gained in part through high-level direct and indirect Saudi

contacts, including the late H.E. Prince Mohammed, Governor of the Eastern Province, who

14

before his assassination supported the Customer Buy-Out bid for Rolls-Royce and Bentley

Motors co-ordinated by the Defendant in 1997/1998, without wishing to give offence to any

Muslim, that Islam was a fraudulent religion. That is because the Koran was not dictated by

God, as Islamic theologians proclaim, but by a series of theologians at the Vatican, hence the

original being in Latin and the requirement for early Islamic scholars to speak Latin. The

Defendant also understood that the first author of the Koran died before the work could be

completed, explaining the differences between the earlier and later chapters. That in turn

helps explain the deep division between Sufi and Salafist Muslims, which in turn has a

bearing on understanding Islamo-fascist terrorist organisations such as al Qaeda.

Understanding that bin Laden only wore religious dress when on public view (e.g. when

recording propaganda videos) helped in tracking him. This analysis was of interest inter alia

to the NSA and FBI, which may help explain why the illegally seized material included a

name in the Arabian Peninsula intelligence section of the FBI. Intelligence analysts and

policy-makers who view Islam as a genuine religion, and fail to understand that al Qaeda is

sponsored by the DVD, inevitably will be unable to accurately predict its targeting priorities.

TVP, e.g. have mocked the Defendant for stating that al Qaeda had probably targeted British

rail infrastructure. It is of course easy to mock that which you do not understand. Bild

carried reports in the week beginning 19th

August 2013 that al Qaeda was targeting rail

infrastructure in Europe, citing US intelligence reports.

21. The Defendant also passed on intelligence on several planned assassination attempts

on President George W. Bush. Since urgent warnings were passed to the Secret Service via

telephone GCHQ will on balance have a record of them. It is highly improbable that the

Secret Service would agree to the release of files from its efficient Intelligence Center in

Arlington, but the GCHQ files should suffice. The Defendant has been in contact with the

15

Secret Service, who have agreed to speak to TVP. The absence of a Secret Service witness

refuting the Defendant‟s claims, which are not being made for the first time and in any event

appear in Spyhunter, is noted, as is the absence of a witness from the FBI, to whom the

Defendant has also spoken.

The Boeing Sentry AEW Mk 1 Grounding

22. The political grounding of the Sentry fleet, our best defence against a nuclear terrorist

attack, at the critical time provides powerful support for the reasoning of the Vulcan team,

and powerful evidence that the Cabinet Office, as Benjamin Fulford has stated, are penetrated

by Germany‟s GO2. Of course the aircraft could have been sortied, had there been the

political will, as there was nothing wrong with them. The MOD would not have misled the

public, and in turn the court, with the with respect nonsensical explanations put forward,

without Cabinet Office backing. The prosecution position on the Sentries is built upon an

obvious lie, that an RAF Sentry has been withdrawn from service. Seven Sentries in all were

delivered by Boeing, and all seven are still in service, six in squadron service and one as a

training aircraft, all at RAF Waddington. The prosecution would not have put themselves in

such an exposed position, potentially damaging to the credibility of TVP and the CPS as

organisations (clearly both should be broken up), had not they not fallen with respect for their

own propaganda and refused to accept that the Defendant is an air intelligence specialist

sufficiently high-powered to be able to confirm from both Boeing, the airframe manufacturer,

and Lockheed Martin, the prime maintenance contractor, that there were no reported

problems with the Boeing E-3 Sentry in 2012.

16

Nuclear Warheads Available to the German DVD for Terrorist Purposes as of 01APR12

23. As of 1st April 2012 there were probably up to seven (7) nuclear warheads available to

the DVD, although there are areas of uncertainty over the deployment of a nuclear warhead

trigger for the Boxing Day Tsunami and if so how many were deployed, the North Korean

nuclear programme and the possible splitting of acquired warheads, i.e. the division of fissile

material so as to create two or more smaller viable devices. TVP have never accepted with

respect that there are any nuclear warheads unaccounted for, a facile position with respect,

unsupported with INTELCOM, indeed, again with respect, it borders on fantasy. Officially

there are no missing nuclear warheads of course, but the official position is simply adopted so

as to not to alarm the public. A total of four, diallable, 500KT P700 Granit warheads were

removed from the SSGN Kursk in August 2000 (the already submitted article on Soviet

cruise missiles, which need not be evidenced as it is a published text from a reputable source,

and may be cited in the same way as an extract from a learned specialist journal, accurately

sets out the history of the Soviet/Russian SLCM programme). A further four 550 KT, non-

diallable, SS-19 warheads seem to have been acquired from Kiev on behalf of Iran by the

DVD agent Viktor Bout in or about 2002. Two, possibly three, of these may have been

deployed in earthquake-triggering undersea detonations (GCHQ have access to the seismic

surveys of each event). One may have been retrieved since April 2012 by the CIA in a

successful sting operation. There may have been two of the SA 15 KT devices still in

circulation, although they appear to have been sent to North Korea, where both may have

been detonated. It is the threat posed by these warheads which stimulated the immense

17

research effort into methods of countering covert IND insertion, including muon tomography,

able to penetrate lead shielding.

The Interviews

24. The purported interview transcripts are incomplete and inaccurate, and are not

accepted. Strictly the interviews are inadmissible, as there are no admissions, however there

is no objection to the discs being played to the jury. The Defendant will be giving evidence,

there is no departure from any of his statements in interview, all of which were given in good

faith and are accurate, save as some confusion over Skype (the Defendant has been a long-

term Skype user and has used Skype terminals other than his own, but Skype software was

not in fact downloaded onto seized mini-laptop computer) and playing the discs would to a

large extent, the court may agree, take the place of evidence in chief.

Disclosure/Abuse of Process

25. There has been a wholesale failure to disclose material intelligence files in the

possession of JIC, the Cabinet Office, MI5, MI6, TVP Special Branch, SOCA, CTC, GCHQ

and DIS, such as to corrupt the trial process and with respect call into question the integrity of

both TVP and the CPS. The DPP has very properly, with respect, been forced to stand down

and hopefully his replacement will work to a higher ethical standard, ditto the new Director-

General of MI5. Clearly Sir Jonathan Evans could not continue as D-G after the Service‟s

18

multiple failures over Vulcan, which happened on his watch and nearly cost tens of thousands

of lives. The Director of SOCA has also been forced out and rightly so, with respect. Again

the defence respectfully hope that his successor will work to a higher ethical standard and

stop withholding relevant material, including the Defendant‟s role as a CHIS, from the

defence and the court.

26. The Defendant should explain the concept of collateral intelligence attack. When it

becomes desirable in the national security interest to force say the director of an intelligence

or law enforcement agency from office it is almost unknown for the real reason to be made

public, particularly in a nation such as the UK where the state bureaucracy is penetrated by a

hostile intelligence agency and has only limited functionality (the CPS with respect is a

classic example of a penetrated state prosecutor, hence the Defendant‟s conclusion, expressed

in Spyhunter that it is in the national security interest of the United Kingdom for it to be

broken up). The director in question will usually come under counter-intelligence scrutiny

and may or may not be placed under surveillance. If the surveillance or standard MISE

checks throw up concerns over corrupt practices, as was the case with the outgoing Director

of SOCA (improper concealment of private business dealings) these can be used to force the

Director to resign, usually „to spend more time with his family.‟ This can either be done

directly, or indirectly through say an oversight committee or tame journalists in the media.

For the avoidance of doubt, although several hundred media contacts were in the unlawfully

seized material, this not something the Defendant himself would ordinarily do, although he

might be sounded out informally by intelligence officers about concerns they might have, or

asked for suggestions as to a suitable successor.

19

Lines of Cross-Examination

27. These are indicated in the attached Annex, which it is hoped is a helpful way of

setting them out.

MICHAEL SHRIMPTON

20th

August 2013

20

A N N E X

Hannah Edwards

Why was the Defendant‟s voicemail not treated as a hoax if that was genuinely her view?

The Defendant would also with to further clarify the timeline and why the political references

he gave were not taken up. If the prosecution wish to take statements from them they are at

liberty to do so.

Barry Burton

What was actually said? Why was no note taken at the time? What exactly was said by the

Cabinet Office and to whom did he speak? Why is there no statement from that person? To

which agencies was the intelligence passed on and why, if it genuinely the view of MOD that

the Defendant‟s briefing on Vulcan was given in bad faith? What checks were made with

DIS? Did TVP go back to Burton after DIS, DIA and ONI names and numbers were seized

from the Defendant‟s home? Why were the MOD willing to mislead the public, TVP, the

CPS and the court over the Sentries? Who grounded them? What is the state of MOD‟s

knowledge on Vulcan? Why were the referees the Defendant named not consulted, as a

background check on him? Can Burton confirm the accuracy of the names and numbers for

MOD in AAH/18? Have checks been made, e.g. with former Chiefs of Staff, as to whether

they know the Defendant? Are MOD aware of the United Kingdom National Defence

Association (UKNDA)? Is it right that the Defendant is associated with them? How many

former Chiefs of Staff are associated with UKNDA? What follow-up contact has there been

21

with the Pentagon, the RAN and the Indian Navy over Vulcan, in particular over associated

naval activity in the Indian Ocean? Why was the call not recorded? What have MOD done

to retrieve the Echelon recording from GCHQ?

Cecile Brits

Why was the Defendant‟s e-mail not acted upon? What checks if any were made with e.g.

AWRE Aldermaston about the phrase „emissions-silent‟, standard terminology for a nuclear

security specialist? What qualifications does Ms Brit possess which suit her to make

judgments about nuclear security? Can she confirm that Sir David Nicholson has been forced

to resign in disgrace following over 1,000 unnecessary deaths at a hospital for which he was

responsible? Was that scandal the real reason for his resignation or was it his contribution to

the grotesque security failure over Vulcan, which placed many more lives at risk, including

that of our beloved Sovereign?

Sarah Sproat

What actually was said and why were the recordings not kept? Does she support David

Lidington‟s re-selection as MP?

Margaret Haddow

Does she support David Lidington‟s re-selection? Is it right that ACCA is split, on the issues

of gay marriage, HS2 and Europe, on which issues the Defendant is opposed to David

Lidington? Can she confirm the circumstances in which the Defendant defected to the

Conservative and Unionist Party in 1997? Can she confirm that the Defendant is known to

senior figures on the Right of the Party?

Delma Beebe

22

Can she confirm that the Defendant and John Randall MP are known to each other? The

media reports of the Defendant‟s defection and the associated press conference, attended by

John Randall and the Defendant, at which he was introduced as a Tory should be put to her,

as a courtesy. They were served as an annex to the dismissal submissions.

DC Hurt

Where are his notes, supporting his claim that the Defendant stated that he was an

“intelligence officer”? Was this officer mistaken about that, or is he simply lying, in order to

discredit the Defendant? If he was lying was asked to lie by a superior officer and if so

which officer?

DC Cussen

Agreed, as to fact.

DC Hughes

Agreed, as to fact. Clearly the legality of the search and seizure are disputed but those are

matters for the civil proceedings.

Lynsey Blas

Why have there been no follow-up enquiries re the Defendant‟s intelligence contacts? What

has been done to review Neil Jones‟s telephone records, even after it became clear that he and

the Defendant were in regular communication at the material time? Why was nothing done

to verify the Defendant‟s statements in interview, save for pointless checks of his phone

records, even after he had made it clear that cut-outs were being used? Did she notice a van

opposite 8 Jusons Glebe when the illegal raid was being carried out? What contact has there

been with MI5 and GHCQ? Why were MI6 and the Foreign Office not contacted after the

23

ministerial statement to the press on 1st November 2012 confirming a nuclear threat to the

London Games? What has been done to put material statements by the Defendant to other

prosecution witnesses? Why are the two letters from MI5 to the Defendant being

suppressed?

Monika Krupska

Agreed as to fact.

DC Havelock

As per Lynsey Blas, with additional questions about contact with MI5. Intel contacts in

AAH/18 and 19 will be put to this witness. Why can the claim in interview that Ambassador

Bolton gave a statement not be supported by a statement from the Ambassador? Why were

no checks made with Major-General Howes in Washington or MOD re Director Marshall of

ONA at the Pentagon? Does this officer now accept the truth of the Defendant‟s statements

about the age and status of Director Marshall? Why do TVP still support CONTEST when

it‟s risible nonsense and has been an obvious failure? Does this officer now accept that

SECTU are out of their depth in dealing with terrorism and do not understand it? What

nuclear warheads do SECTU accept are in circulation and available to al Qaeda? Why could

SECTU not do a basic Internet search and locate the websites missed by those responsible for

Olympic security? What contact has there been with the Russian GRU and SVR? Why is

there no statement from the US Secret Service? Does this officer accept that TVP have a

history of lying about the Defendant and concealing material facts from the Bar Council and

High Court judges? Why was the Special Branch report on the ID of the bogus Iranian Bar

Council complainant not disclosed? Why have Special Branch had the Defendant under

surveillance for “thirty years” (the officer‟s own words in interview) and why have TVP

Special Branch been party to the dissemination of smears on the Defendant including the

24

blatant lies that he was forced out of Tanfield Chambers and the Military Commentators

Circle? Why did TVP SB smear the Defendant to Christopher Story, aiding the latter‟s

assassination by the DVD and was this officer in any way involved in the disgraceful murder

of the British intelligence officer Dr David Kelly CMG?

Andrew Todd

Why was this witness party to gross breaches of security and confidentiality? Who is John

Lynes, to whom does he report and why is there no statement from him? Does he accept that

the Security Liaison Office are penetrated by GO2? Did any of the Principals approve of the

actions he took? Has he been asked to verify the contact details at the Palace seized from the

Defendant? Why have the Defendant‟s Palace and Lord Lieutenancy files not been

disclosed? Does he accept that the Defendant was in communication with the Palace over a

successful attempt to prevent the theft of monies from a joint account in which one of the

Principals had an interest?

Matthew Beckess

Agreed

Squadron Leader Evans

With whom did you consult before issuing your statement? Why have you not dealt with the

discrepancy between your statement and the public statements at the time of the MOD?

What was the “engineering issue”? Which aircraft was “disposed of”? What aircraft were

delivered to the RAF and how many are still in service? Where is the audit trail for this

alleged “engineering issue”? Why was Boeing, as the design authority for the E-3, not

notified? Ditto the USAF, Royal Saudi Air Force, Armée de l‟Air and NATO? The known

hull losses and production history of the E-3 will be examined in detail. Where is the

25

statement from Lockheed Martin? Is it right that Lockheed Martin maintain the aircraft?

Why is there no reference to them in his statement? Were the Vulcan team correct in their

conclusion that that the Sentry was the one aircraft in the RAF inventory able to carry

suitable radiation sampling equipment? Does this officer accept that the RAF have a long

history of radiation sampling, e.g. Operation Chanti 01 (543 Squadron, ex El Pumerillo AFB

Peru, following a French nuclear test, probably at Mururoa Atoll, 20th

June 1974, Handley

Page HP80 Victor B(SR) Mk 2 XL193)? Does the Sentry have the ability to deploy muon

tomography packages? What nuclear devices are assumed to be available for terrorist

insertion into the UK? What intelligence follow-up was there to the NRO/NSA satellite

confirmation of the Vulcan intelligence? What intelligence „wash-up‟ has there been to the

E-3 Fleet‟s failure to detect the Vulcan devices, in particular consultation with the USAF

AEW community? What about the Cambridge Airport King Air crash and its monitoring of

the Olympic site?

Commander Gareth John

What was the Fleet‟s disposition as of 21st April 2012? Why is there no reference to contact

from ONI, „wash-up‟ after Vulcan and the SOSUS records? What contact was there with the

Indian Navy, RAN and USN over the incident in the Indian Ocean involving an SSK, NE of

the Comoros Islands? Does this officer accept that there is a covert Iranian submarine base in

the Comoros Islands? What was done if anything about the covert SSK facility in the

Philippines identified by the Vulcan team?

Katie Swinden

This witness‟s offensive characterisation of the Defendant‟s dealings with Kudos will be

challenged. Was she involved in the attempt to deceive BBC Bristol over the Defendant‟s

retention by Kudos?

26

Justin Glass

The political differences between the Defendant and this witness, particularly over the EU,

will be explored, along with the strong links between EAG and the Foreign Office. It will be

suggested that there is a degree of political bias in his statements.

DC Naughton

Was this statement cleared with the Chief Constable? If not, why not? Why was there no

investigation of the Defendant‟s analysis that Shimon Peres (not “Perez”) had pulled out of

the Opening Ceremony on security advice from the Mossad? If the witness cannot even spell

the name of Israel‟s veteran Head of State how could be set himself up as an expert on Jewish

religious observance? Is he Jewish? How many Jewish religious services has he attended?

Has he ever visited Israel? The witness will be challenged as to his apparent rejection of the

Defendant‟s briefing to BTP on 10th

August re 7/7, 21/7 and Jean Charles de Menezes. Why

have those officers not been called, not least as the reference to their views is clearly

inadmissible?

Katie Rothman

Clarification will be sought as to why the Defendant was invited and the attendees at this

seminar. Has Professor Neumann been passed the name of Patricia Wilson in the

Chancellor‟s office in Berlin and if not, why not? Does the witness know who Patricia

Wilson is?

DS Palmer

This witness will be strongly challenged as to the circulation by TVP of smears of the

Defendant and various lies in his statement, including the false claim that TVP SB officers

visited him. Was this officer involved in the smear operation which helped the DVD to

27

murder the Defendant‟s friend and source Christopher Story FRSA and the cover-up of Dr

Kelly‟s murder? Why have SB put the Defendant under unlawful surveillance for 30 years?

Who authorised the surveillance? Why does he think the Defendant‟s Wikipedia entry was

placed by him?

Karen Isted

Cross-examination will be limited to identifying by name the West Midlands SB officer who

attended the RUSI seminar on 7/7.

Robert Adkins

The same issue as to the SB officer arises.

Susan Elliott

Why have Leicestershire Police lied about the Defendant? Who authorised the lies? Why is

the e-mail from the Cabinet Office being suppressed, along with the tapes of the briefing by

the Defendant on the McCann kidnap? Why did Leicestershire Police facilitate Madeleine

McCann‟s continued kidnap and murder by passing on highly confidential intelligence to

Lisbon after they had been warned that Lisbon were penetrated? What does this officer know

of the blocking by the Cabinet Office and DIS of the planned JARIC/NSA hook-up? What

steps were done to verify the contents of the Barham report? How does this witness explain

the kidnap and continued hiding of the young girl from sight if the Gerard Group analysis is

rejected? If Madeleine is still alive, where is she? Why was nothing done to retrieve the

Montpelier CCTV footage of Madeleine? Does the witness accept that the police inquiry was

not intelligence led and was largely a farce, being based upon the facile premise that a kidnap

on this scale could have been organised by a lone paedophile with no intelligence agency

backing?

28

Paul Farmery

How did the OIC manage to miss multiple Internet references to a catastrophic/nuclear attack

on the London Games? What steps were in place to detect a nuclear attack on the Games and

when was the ramp-up hinted at by Alistair Burt MP in November 2012 implemented? What

detection devices were in place and when were they put there? Why is there no reference to

the Cambridge King Air? Why were the public fobbed off with such an obviously untrue

explanation as to why the King Air was overflying the Olympic site? Why did it crash? The

generalised incompetence of the civilian security arrangements for the London Games,

leading to the need for military intervention to assist the civil power, will be examined. Is it

not true that one reason for the dramatically increased military involvement was that

intelligence reports had started to circulate of a nuclear/radiological threat? Is this witness

contradicting the Security Minister at the Foreign Office? If not how does he explain the

discrepancy between his statement and the minister‟s press briefing?

Admiral Lord West of Sptithead

Has the e-mail from him to the Defendant been shown to him? Why did he send it? Why did

he not deny the analysis put to him by the Defendant at the time? Has he heard of Sir Louis

le Bailly, an equally distinguished predecessor as DGI? Is he aware that Sir Louis and the

Defendant knew each other and has he been shown the dedications by Sir Louis when making

gifts of his two splendid little books to the Defendant? What does Lord West know of naval

deployments on 20th

/21st April? Does he still accept that he was right to be concerned when

in government with the potential Iranian threat? Can His Lordship comment on the Kursk

sinking, the article on Soviet cruise missiles served on the CPS, which he should be shown in

advance, and does he accept that the Kursk was carrying 4 nuclear-tipped SS-N-19s? If not,

why not, given Russian naval doctrine for attacking US CVBGs? What about the SA 15KT

29

nukes? What are his views on the Defendant‟s observations on naval matters in Spyhunter?

How usual is it for British civilians to be flown by the US Navy onto a nuclear-powered

aircraft carrier?

Air Marshal Sir John Walker

How did Sir John advise the Defendant in their call(s)? Does he accept that the Defendant

has intelligence expertise? Has he been told about the number of intelligence contacts found

when his home was raided? What does he know about RAF radiation sampling capabilities?

Were the Vulcan team correct to assume that the Sentry was the right „bit of kit‟ for the job?

What does he know of the SA nukes, the Kursk nukes, the stolen SS-N-19s and the

development of muon tomography? What does he know of Commodore English? Is he

aware that Commodore English has confirmed the existence of the DVD and GO2? Same

questions for Sir John, as a former DGI, re Sir Louis le Bailly, as for Lord West. What does

Sir John know about the McCann kidnap and murder by the DVD? Questions re the Barham

report, prepared at his suggestion for the JIC. Does he accept that Leicestershire Police were

only allowed to lead the investigation in the expectation that they wouldn‟t get anywhere, as

they were known to be incompetent, to the extent that they were a laughing stock in

INTELCOM? What does he know of Juliet Lima, the U-2 pilot represented by the

Defendant? General questions re the analysis in Spyhunter, e.g. of the abortive coup in the

UK in 1968.

Michael Wyatt

What passed between him and the Defendant in their telephone calls in April 2012? What

does he know of GO2? General discussion re the utility of ambulances and liveried vehicles

for transporting illicit material and radiation masking. What does he know of the Olympic

security ramp-up and the deployment of muon detectors? What does he know of the DVD

30

and the Vulcan devices? Are their security concerns re the TVP Chief Constable? What is

his intelligence background? What does he know of the McCann kidnap? What

conversations has he had with Sir John Scarlett concerning the Defendant, Operation Vulcan

and Operation Canberra (the McCann kidnap/murder investigation)? What intelligence files

is he aware of which have been suppressed in this case?

Neil Jones

The witness will be taken through Operation Vulcan from the beginning. Why was he

concerned? What statements were being made on the Internet? What discussions did he

have with Ben Fulford in Tokyo? Can he assist re his other sources? What can he say about

a Type 23 frigate deployed off the Kent coast on 20th

and 21st April 2012? What does he

know of the exfiltration of the first device, code-named Vulcan One? What about Vulcan

Two? What about the Kursk? What nuclear devices are out there, in his opinion? Are there

any MISE concerns re the Chief Constable of TVP? What does he know of the McCann

kidnap and murder and the assassination of Christopher Story? How well did he know Mr

Story? What track record does Mr Jones have in the intelligence field?

Commodore English

What is his intelligence background, starting with the Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg 1937,

continuing through World War II and thereafter? Did he interrogate former Deputy Führer

Rudolf Hess? Exploration of his statements, which are accepted, re the DVD and GO2.

What does he know of Vulcan One and Two? What does he know of the McCann case?

Exploration of his knowledge of the DVD‟s SSK fleet and movements, with particular

reference to Vulcan and McCann. What can he say about the relationship between GO2 and

the Cabinet Office? What does he know of the Kelly and Story assassinations?

31

Nicola Slater

Why the change in TVP‟s investigations, both as to line and personnel? Why have the MI5

letters been suppressed? What is her true opinion of the intelligence contacts, details of

which were seized in the raid on the Defendant‟s home? Discussion of the failures of the

investigation generally.

DS Mottau

As per DC Havelock and DC Slater.

32

33

34