This is the second of three articles examining the criminal defense planned by British barrister Michael Shrimpton on national security charges in a London jury trial scheduled to begin Nov. 10.
LONDON – Several British military intelligence sources with a long track record say they are prepared to testify in the trial of a barrister charged with allegedly making false claims to British government officials that a terrorist nuclear attack was under way during the 2012 Olympics in London.
As WND reported, Michael Shrimpton, who faces a Nov. 10 trial, also appears in a 2008 video that began re-circulating earlier this year on the Internet in which he claims to have been privy to shocking intelligence information on Obama’s origins. Shrimpton contends to this day that the CIA collected DNA from then-Sen. Obama and a grandparent, establishing that Stanley Ann Dunham was not Obama’s biological mother. He intends to subpoena from the CIA and British intelligence any records either agency may have on Obama’s DNA.
After a March 17 hearing in the London case, WND met in the U.K. with British intelligence experts who were asked to evaluate Shrimpton and his defense.
Evaluating the case
Christopher Monckton, a former aide to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a WND columnist, said he believes Shrimpton was acting in good faith when he made the terror-threat report to the British government.
“My best guess is that the government will eventually see the sense in dropping the criminal prosecution against Shrimpton, since it is quite clear from my own earlier discussions with Shrimpton about this episode that he genuinely believed that terrorists had obtained a redundant German submarine and were planning to sail it up the Thames and blow up the Olympics with a nuclear weapon,” Monckton said in an interview with WND in London.
Glaring inconsistencies, blackouts and outright fabrications in Barack Obama’s life narrative have generated widespread doubts about his presidential eligibility — Jerome Corsi’s “Where’s the Real Birth Certificate?” sets the record straight.
“It was entirely clear from my discussions with Michael that he was trying to do the right thing, and the authorities do not, in the end, want to deter people from making reports that might prevent mass murder on a horrific scale,” Monckton said.
After reviewing court filings Shrimpton had prepared in his defense, Monckton concluded Shrimpton has legitimate contacts in the military intelligence community. Monckton considers it possible that at trial Shrimpton could subpoena classified documents and expert testimony that would support his various claims.
“However, it is also possible that the government may be stupid enough to try to proceed with the case,” he cautioned.
Particularly problematic for the prosecution, according to Monckton, could be Shrimpton’s charges that the CIA conducted DNA tests on Barack Obama in 2008 that Shrimpton alleges prove Ann Dunham was not Obama’s natural mother.
“If Shrimpton were to be shown a CIA document indicating that a DNA test had been done on Mr. Obama, there would be some stringent conditions of confidentiality,” Monckton said.
“Shrimpton would probably not be allowed to have a copy of the document, but would be required to read it in the presence of an agent.”
Monckton stressed that Shrimpton will not have to prove at trial that he was precisely correct in every aspect of his reporting to the government of a perceived threat. But he will have to establish that he has legitimate intelligence sources. Also, his charges, while appearing initially outrageous to many, cannot be dismissed without serious investigation, Monckton said.
In the final analysis, if Shrimpton can establish his competence in the intelligence field and present reason to believe his information was true, then it is hard to see how the government can convict Shrimpton.
That Shrimpton in his various writings makes various claims that are later shown to have been factually incorrect will not be sufficient to establish his guilt under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, a statute written to punish those who deliberately carry out hoaxes.
“A person who communicates any information which he knows or believes to be false to another person with the intention of inducing in him or any other person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present in any place or location whatever is guilty of an offence.”
A person convicted of a criminal offense under the hoax law in Crown Court is subject to up to seven years in prison.
The law, however, carries a high threshold for establishing guilt, as noted by British legal commentator Allen Green in TheLawyer.com blog.
Green said the Crown “would have to discharge a high burden of evidential proof to convict under this offence: They have to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to induce in another person a false belief that a bomb or other thing liable to explode or ignite is present.”
“Unless the prosecution can show this then the defendant cannot be convicted,” he said.
Prosecuted for a tweet
Perhaps the most famous case that could have been tried under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 was a bomb threat posted on Twitter on Jan. 10, 2010, by Paul John Chambers. The tweet was sent in frustration that Robin Hood Airport near Doncaster, South Yorkshire, was closed due to a snowstorm.
Chambers had hoped to fly to Belfast, Ireland, to meet a girlfriend he had met on Twitter. He tweeted: “Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your sh** together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”
As the case developed, Chambers was found guilty of a misdemeanor under Section 127(1) of the Communications Act of 2003 that prohibits sending “by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive of an indecent, obscene or menacing character.”
In May 2010, Chambers was convicted by district judge Jonathan Bennett of the Doncaster magistrates court and fined 1,000 British pounds. However, the conviction was overturned on appeal two years later.
The London Guardian reported the Crown Prosecution Service was criticized by various members of Parliament for having wasted public money on a joke and putting Chambers, aged 27 at the time of his appeal, through two and a half years of serious stress.
How realistic are threats of nuclear terrorism?
On March 23, while WND was in London, the U.K.’s Mirror newspaper published an article titled “Al-Qaida target Premier League matches and sporting events attended by Queen in chilling online magazine.”
The article explained recent online postings by al-Qaida operatives have heightened security concerns that a wave of British “lone wolf” jihadists fresh from battlegrounds in Syria may be plotting murderous terrorist attacks on horse races watched by the Queen as well as prominent soccer games and tennis matches.
“Security surrounding the monarch was tonight stepped up after al-Qaida chiefs urged terrorists to blow up sports events she is most likely to go and see,” the Mirror reported.
The British paper said an article by the English-language online magazine ‘Inspire,’ produced by the terror group, gives tips on car bombing and disguises, and identifies potential high-profile targets around the globe.
The Inspire article, by an author calling himself the AQ Chef, says: “In the beginning of summer we have Cheltenham and [at] the end of the summer we have Epsom, whereby horse races are attended by thousands from around the kingdom including the Queen.”
Accompanying the article in the Mirror was a comment by Col. Richard Kemp, former director of international terrorist intelligence for the Investigative Intelligence Agency COBRA
“Major sporting events have long been on al-Qaida’s list of targets,” Kemp wrote.
“Huge crowds in packed stadiums can make security checks very difficult and lead to mass casualties. When televised live they give the terrorists what they want – footage that will be beamed around the world. Although Inspire’s authors know getting the chance of getting near the Queen are remote, they realize attacking a venue where she is present will be huge news.”
Two days later, President Obama, while attending the 2014 Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague, Netherlands, said at a news conference that he was more worried about a terrorist nuclear weapon being detonated in Manhattan than he was concerned about Russian intentions in Ukraine.
“So my response then continues to be what I believe today, which is: Russia’s actions are a problem, but they don’t pose the number one national security threat to the United States,” Obama said. “I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.”
While the reports don’t confirm Shrimpton’s specific accusations, they indicate a terrorist nuclear attack on London during the Olympics was a legitimate security concern.
In the 2005 WND-published book “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians,” the author of this article devoted the largest part of a chapter to explaining how a terrorist group could smuggle an improvised nuclear device into New York City and detonate it with catastrophic consequences.
‘I was in the building myself’
Outside London, WND was introduced by Shrimpton to a British military intelligence expert who is listed as a prosecution witness in Shrimpton’s trial.
The credentials of the source, who asked not to be identified, have been verified by WND, stretching back to Germany in the pre-World War II era.
The source said the judge in Shrimpton’s trial will have to provide an opportunity for testimony in closed session if he is to be questioned about classified intelligence information he believes would be helpful to Shrimpton’s case.
He told WND that he believed Shrimpton was correct in fearing a terrorist nuclear attack was being planned to take place during the 2012 Olympics in London. However, he begged off affirming the nuclear weapon in question was stolen from the submerged Russian submarine Kursk.
He also backed up a further claim Shrimpton made that a secret German intelligence operation known as the Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst, or German Defense Service, known as DVD, exists and operates in buildings located close to the site of the former Nazi concentration camp in Dachau, Germany.
“I have been in the DVD headquarters building myself, and I am willing to so testify under oath in court,” the intelligence source told WND.
Subsequent to the meeting, Shrimpton addressed a March 24 email to the Crown Prosecution Service in which he wrote:
This is to advise you as a courtesy that (name deleted) was gracious enough to accept a luncheon invitation from Dr. Corsi and myself over the weekend. He is not of course on the ‘no contact’ list. The venue was (location deleted).
During the luncheon (name deleted) was gracious enough to confirm in Dr. Corsi’s presence and hearing that a nuclear warhead HAD been inserted into London in 2012, i.e. that my intelligence briefing to the Secretary of State, qualified as it was, was essentially accurate. Commodore English has already confirmed of course in his witness statement that the DVD exists and that he has visited its HQ in Dachau.
In my opinion these statements fairly reflect the state of opinion amongst senior members of the Intelligence Community.
The CPS did not respond to WND inquiries asking whether the prosecution intended to call source to testify.
Over the course of 10 days in the U.K., WND witnessed repeated instances in which credible military intelligence agents telephoned Shrimpton to give him inside information regarding current developments in British politics and in matters of foreign affairs.
“The great problem in what I do,” Shrimpton explained, “is that intelligence sources provide me with information on the condition I use them as background sources only, keeping their names out of the press.
“If I violate this trust, I risk the informant might deny my report while cutting me off from any further information the source might otherwise have been willing to leak to the public through me.”
Intelligence experts WND interviewed were unanimous that Shrimpton at trial would have to find a way to disclose key sources to the judge and jury.
During the hearing in Judge McCreath’s court on March 17, Shrimpton read a list of witnesses he wished to call in his defense, without identifying his reasons for selecting each one.
In doing so, Shrimpton made McCreath aware that provisions may have to be made at trial to examine classified documents Shrimpton planned to subpoena and to take the testimony of credible military intelligence experts with top-secret information behind closed doors.
In the approximately 20 minutes Shrimpton took to make this pleading to the court, McCreath in each instance instructed Shrimpton to put his request in writing, promising a ruling on the requests “at the appropriate time.”