Although undoubtedly accidental, posts on Twitter/X posted by GB News “National Reporter” Charlie Peters yesterday have had the effect of breathing new life into conspiracist interpretations of the arson trial in which three young men are accused of having set fire to property associated with Keir Starmer. As discussed yesterday, the prosecution case is as follows, as reported by Sky News (emphasis added):
Continuing to outline his case, Duncan Atkinson KC says that the three defendants acted motivated by money and not political or ideological reasons.
…”It is not part of your considerations to decide who ‘El Money’ is and what reason he might have had to coordinate the actions of these defendants against these properties and this car associated with the prime minister,” Atkinson says.
“That is because you do not have to decide what motivated these three defendants.”
Conspiracists, however, assert without evidence and despite the obvious implausibilities that the three men were “rent boys” with a private grudge against Starmer. Normal media restraint prior to the trial was treated as a sinister conspiracy of silence which some (e.g. Andrew Bridgen) continue to assert exists despite widespread publicity now that the trial is underway. Peters quite properly does not refer to any of this nonsense, but a thread he posted yesterday obscures Atkinson’s assertion as to a financial motive (with phone transcripts presented as supporting evidence), and is written in such a way that most of the time it is not immediately clear whether the jury is being addressed by the prosecutor or instructed by the judge.
Here is the first of three:
I’m at the Old Bailey for the case against three men accused of arson attacks at properties and a vehicle linked to Keir Starmer.
The men are said to have not shown any political or ideological motivation and were paid by a Russian-speaking Telegram account called “El Money”.
This leaves open the question of what their motivation actually was, even though as reported by Sky News (a few minutes before his post) the prosecutor explicitly stated that they were motivated by money.
Next:
The jury has been told not to consider who “El Money” is and why he coordinated the arson attacks.
Jurors have also been told by the prosecution that they do not have to decide what motivated the defendants, only if they conspired to commit arson.
The men deny the charges.
This post has taken on a life of its own, via screenshots that separate it from the thread context. The clarification “told by the prosecution” at last appears, but its connection to the second line leaves the first line ambiguous – and those promoting the post as a screenshot have explicitly interpreted it incorrectly as an instruction from the judge (see this nested farrago of nonsense for an example)
The jury was also told that it does not matter whether the defendants knew that the vehicle and properties they were targeting were connected to Keir Starmer.
Jurors were also told not to consider if the links to the prime minister were part of their motivation for the attacks.
“Told not to consider” puts it more strongly than “you do not have to decide” – it creates an impression of the jury being warned not to do something, rather than advised they don’t need to do something. Thus motive is implicitly framed as something to be excluded, rather than as superfluous to the prosecution case. This is something that conspiracists will exploit to the full.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a comment »
