Monday, 22 December 2014

“Well, he would say that wouldn’t he?”

[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today’s edition of The Times:]

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC, said “. . . not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case” (“Lockerbie conspiracy theory is dismissed”, Dec 20). To quote the late Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well, he would say that wouldn’t he?” The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission carefully reinvestigated the case while Mr Megrahi was still alive and found no less than six reasons why the case should be the subject of a further appeal.

That appeal, as Lord [Advocate] Mulholland will remember, was cut short by the return of Megrahi to his homeland, just before crucial questions over the Crown’s case, such as the anachronistic fragment of circuit board, could be re-examined in court.


  1. Living with the "Lockerbie Affair", 2014. (google translation, german/english):

    The Swiss Justice works in the "Lockerbie Affair", with the same method as the Scottish Justice: tactic of delay - and wants to thwart a criminal investigation against a known member of the Swiss intelligence service NDB and against unknown.

    MEBO works in contrast with hand-solid forensic evidence. During the decisive piece of evidence of the MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) is a Scottish proof of fraud, which will bring the whole until today legally valid verdict against Abdelbaset and Libya to crash.

    Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland can already get ready for the next MEBO confrontation. Our endurance is built up on truth !
    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage:

  2. So, what were described as “sources close to” in the Linklater piece soon came to be identified as the holder of one of the great offices of the State himself, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, whose remarks included the astonishing claim “During the 26-year-long inquiry not one Crown Office investigator or prosecutor has raised a concern about the evidence in this case…”

    Just think for a minute, how many individual prosecutors have there been, from previous Lord Advocates to deputes to procurators fiscal to Crown Office staffers, before we start counting the investigators, who presumably include countless police officers, FBI people, CIA people and who knows whom else. Twenty six years is the span of many a professional career and there must be several hundred who stand under the Lord Advocate’s umbrella. We are being asked to believe that to a man and to a woman they were all profoundly content that the evidence stacked up and proved overwhelming guilt.

    What about former Lord Advocate Peter Fraser’s widely quoted comments? They look like concerns to me.

    Why did former Lord Advocate Andrew Hardie resign, just before the trial started? He will never tell us, but it happened just after he would have learned of the CIA/Giaka link. Is it not probable that as an honourable lawyer he had “a concern”.

    Had these remarks been made by a junior depute procurator fiscal, the post Mulholland held when the plane came down, one would have been inclined to put them down to enthusiasm. Coming from the boss they suggest that an unquestioning juridical evangelism prevails in the Crown Office. This is terrifying for all of us.

  3. There seems to be an entirely corrosive mind-set in the Crown Office whereby the agreed line must be adhered to and defended at all costs. Why would anyone be proud that no prosecutor ever raised doubts about the case? Surely raising doubts would be mandatory? Has Mr. Mulholland never heard of the Devil's Advocate? In any investigation, legal or scientific, it is vital to put yourself in the opposing position and try to imagine how your thesis looks from the point of view of someone attacking it.

    When one considers what went on at Zeist, the whole thing becomes even more murky. There, the Crown presented its case so as to imply that a particular baggage handler must have rearranged the suitcases Bedford placed on the floor of the container. This was vital to their interpretation of the suitcase evidence. But all along they had that baggage handler's statements, in which he had repeatedly declared he didn't move these cases. They chose not to call him to the witness box to clarify this issue. Nobody at all thought this was a bit questionable? Really?

    The behaviour of the Crown Office has been repeatedly characterised by dishonesty and borderline false statements, from the assertion that there was nothing in the redacted CIA cables that could cast doubt on Giaka's credibility, to the statement that the Lord Advocate had had a senior counsel go through the case and he declared everything was hunky-dory. That was said in a context that implied it was something Frank Mulholland had done in 2013, in response to Justice for Megrahi's allegations of criminality, but it turned out they were referring to something commissioned by Elish Angiolini in 2007, long before Justice for Megrahi made its submissions.

    These people are not concerned with truth and justice and fair play, they're concerned with shoring up the reputation of the extablishment at all costs. This ought to scare every one of us.