Thursday, 4 October 2012

"It’s a long process but I’m not giving up" says Lord Advocate

[What follows is the Lockerbie portion of an article reporting on an exclusive interview given by Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser:]

A steely determination to seek the truth and deliver justice has catapulted Coatbridge-born Frank Mulholland to the powerful top law post in Scotland of Lord Advocate.

And in an exclusive interview with the Advertiser this week, the nation’s top prosecutor reveals his views on the Lockerbie bombing (...)

The 53-year-old former St Bernard’s Primary and St Columba’s High School pupil told how he will not give up on the Lockerbie bombing investigation (...)

Mr Mulholland travelled to Libya in April with the director of the FBI Robert Mueller to discuss opportunities for stepping up the probe into the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people.

He said: “Going to Libya was the right thing to do.

“The Interim Prime Minister made very helpful statements regarding co-operation.

“I was looked after by a lot of good people and felt safe under their security.

“I would go back if there was good reason to do so and if my visit was not putting others at risk.

“It’s a long process but I’m not giving up. A lot of people lost their lives.”

[Be assured, Mr Mulholland, Justice for Megrahi is not giving up either, notwithstanding Crown Office bluster.]


  1. Mr. Mulholland.

    "I beseech you, in the very bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."

    O. Cromwell.

  2. MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 Attn. Prof. Robert Black

    As you are familiar with all aspects of the Lockerbie case – I have a question concerning tax payments?
    It was reported that Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci received $2,000,000, and his brother $1,000,000, from the US Department of Justice. Did the brothers pay taxes for this amount in Malta or Australia? Was it taxfree or was there a tax agreement? Did the authorities checked this or was something published in the past about this?

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication, Switzerland. URL:

  3. I don't know the answers to your questions, Edwin. But I suspect in Malta and Australia the US Department of Justice payments would be regarded as gifts, not as income, and so not subject to income tax. Of course, any interest on the payments once received and invested would be income and hence taxable.

  4. "A steely determination to seek the truth..."

    Without taking a look at, and commenting on, all existing evidence?

    “It’s a long process but I’m not giving up."

    So why don't Mr. Mulholland just sit down and explain to the world why it is not relevant to worry about the numerous pieces of evidence that has surfaced ever since the conviction?

    Yes, why don't he write an open letter "To the sceptics in the Lockerbie case..."

    It would surely much faster than going to Libya.

    Speaking frankly, I am afraid the reason may be, that he don't have any answers, and that if you want a top post in a rotten Scottish legal system you need also to accept a position as a proven hypocrite.

    But how I'd love to be proven wrong.

  5. If you want a top position in the Scottish legal system you have to have complied with what the state within the state requested you to do.

  6. If you want a top post in both the Scottish and English legal systems you'll have had to comply with the demands of the state within the state.

  7. The headline in the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser is ‘Lord Advocate speaks to the Advertiser’ and is by-lined by the Chief Reporter Wendy Scott.

    And the introduction describes it as an interview.

    However it reads like a statement to the papers rather than an interview. It does say he said this and that, but there are no questions shown.

    If it really was an interview surely some questions about the existing evidence, as mentioned by SM, would have been asked?

    Unless of course, Wendy Scott did get some revealing information that wasn’t published!

    Otherwise it appears to me that in exchange for the kudos of having the Lord Advocate appear in their paper, the Editor dressed up his statement as an interview.

    And the statement was another bit of nonsense about visiting Libya, to maintain the pretext of an ‘on-going’ investigation?