Friday, 7 February 2014

A missive from Frank Duggan

[What follows is the text of an email sent yesterday by Frank Duggan to me, Jim Swire, Father Pat Keegans and lots of others. I reproduce it here to illustrate, if further illustration were necessary, what a delightful human being Mr Duggan is:]

This monster [Gaddafi] was aided and abetted for the last quarter century by the likes of Prof Black and his always wrong legal experts; a sensationalist and disgraceful media, including news outlets (Scottish Herald, The Scotsman, and comical tabloids); media producers from BBC and others; shameless UK politicians like that dingbat Christine Grahame; book and movie promoters (the latest being John Ashton and Morag Kerr); the businessmen and diplomats who assisted Gaddafi's successful effort to have Megrahi released from the Scottish prison; and more.  Added to this incomplete list should be the UK family member, a supporter of Gaddafi from the very beginning, who sat with the Libyans during legal proceedings, went to Libya to hug Gaddafi, the man who murdered his daughter, and who called the detestable little murderer Megrahi "my friend" and a "gentle Muslim".

No one can take any pleasure reading these revelations about Gaddafi, but at least the thousands of investigators, police, prosecutors and law enforcement professionals who worked on the Lockerbie bombing can take some pride in not being persuaded by the many shills supporting Gaddafi. The Scottish justice system and the Crown Office is still being slandered, amazingly, in the UK press, even as they are seeking further proof in Libya. A handful of journalists, most recently Magnus Linklater, are derided when they report on the Libya supporters, who are more interested in publicity than justice. 

When Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, in cooperation with the new Libyan investigators, find more evidence, as they will, the enablers will do little to change their execrable promotion of Megrahi and his Libyan government sponsors.

[Posted from Swakopmund, Namibia.]


  1. I never got wise whether Duggan really represents relatives or not?

    Even though it will be hard to find anyone with proper argumentation style and content that also still believes in Megrahi's guilt, Duggan still seems like a particularly poor choice?

  2. I believe he does. As far as I know, he was one of the lawyers from the Department of Justice tasked with keeping the US relatives on-message at the trial, and he stayed on in that role. Deeply, deeply unpleasant man.

    I'm always amazed by his apparent poor grasp of the facts of the case whenever I hear him interviewed. Either he has no idea and just makes stuff up in the (usually correct) belief that the person interviewing him doesn't know either so he won't be challenged, or he does know, but simply makes up a better story, again believing he won't be challenged.

    Did you hear the radio phone-in thing where he was interviewed by George Galloway? I've no time at all for Galloway, but he did at least have some grasp of the actual facts which Duggan wasn't expecting. Duggan put the phone down on him.

  3. The man seems a bit desperate.

    What concerns me is his belief that the UK will find new evidence.

    The Libyan government is very weak and the support of Western countries is vital to it. Providing 'new evidence' could be made part of the continuing support package. I'm sure it wouldn't be very difficult with a little encouragement to persuade ex-Gaddafi men in custody to say Gaddafi had a hand in Lockerbie.

  4. "Did you hear the radio phone-in thing..."

    This one, yes:
    (About Gauci)
    - Why did the goverment pay him several million dollars?
    - They never did.
    And it goes on.
    No, Duggan is as informed as you'd expect from his style.

    About Megrahi:
    - The man lied under oath
    When was that exactly?
    And the usual "8 judges".

    I love Galloway for his language. The lecture he gave the US Senate in May 2005 is priceless.

    - - -

    Hello Ruth, good to see you back.

    There is no doubt that the Evil Empire would not refrain from more false evidence.

    A couple of documents and generously rewarded witnesses. An obscure picture of Megrahi with a suitcase. A recording between two men discussing the plans. Whatever. And this time it will be done properly.

    Their problem is, that faking evidence comes at a very high price, especially when it is expected to happen. This is also why it is a last resort, and we haven't seen it yet.

    Their best hope is that the case will die out. Fresh evidence will make it all hot again, not something that happened quite some time ago.
    And all the earlier wrongdoings, which no new evidence can change, brought into the light again.

    Screwing up is one thing. Defending it with evidence that so many people will be certain is false is quite another, even if the press will sing along and a majority of people will believe it.

    Even if just 5% of people know you have moved from incompetence and defending old wrongdoings, into being a liar, perjurer and willing to produce fake evidence it will harm everything you will want to do.

    And 5% is just about a magnitude lower than what they can hope for.

  5. Wrongful Convictions Blog

  6. Interesting that Duggan freely admits he hasn't read the book he's slagging off. And that one of his pejoratives is "self-published". I chose to self-publish for logistical reasons (imminence of the 25th anniversary) and because it was a lot less hassle (Troubador didn't want to set lawyers crawling all over it, which was one of the reasons it was possible for them to meet the deadline).

    In contrast I have read every word written by Duggan's side of the case that I can get hold of. Mainly that is the books by Richard Marquise and John Crawford. Both also self-published, as it happens, and both quite execrably written. I search for any evidence there might be to explain their certainty that Megrahi did it, although it seems a forlorn hope as why would there be anything that wasn't covered in the Zeist transcript, let alone in the Opinion of the Court? And indeed there is nothing. These books are just memoirs, badly written, desperately in need of an editor, in Marquise's case very dogmatic about thigs we know are questionable, and in Crawford's case riddled with errors because (as he said himself) it was all written from memory without consulting any notes or any of the extant literature about the case.

    Nevertheless, I tried, because I didn't want to miss any possible source of factual information. Duggan, on the other hand, is busy sticking his fingers in his ears and humming real loud, and advising others to do the same. He thinks I'm eager to debate him. I'm not. On the facts, any one of us discussing here could blow him away. However he is a deeply unpleasant, arrogant, shouty man. Why would anyone want to debate someone whose debating style is to shout over his opponent with loudly asserted falsehoods?

  7. As far as evidence is concerned, I think if they try to fabricate something they'll dig themselves into an even worse hole. The bomb went on at Heathrow. That doesn't mean Gaddafi didn't do it of course, but it does mean Megrahi didn't do it. If they try to fabricate evidence supporting a Malta introduction, it will become obvious what they're doing. Better not to try, I think.

    I wondered myself about Duggan's assertion that they will find something. Does he know there is an intention to have something fabricated? But remember, this is Duggan. He opens his mouth and says the first thing that comes into his head that he thinks will score a point. I'm not making any assumptions about imminent skulduggery on the basis of anything he says.

  8. Here we go: