Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, the Lord Advocate in 1991 at the time when charges in respect of the destruction of Pan Am 103 were brought against Abdelbaset Megrahi, has been a busy little bee. Two Sunday newspapers, The Sunday Times and Scotland on Sunday run interviews in which he accuses Dr Jim Swire of suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Stockholm syndrome relates to the behaviour of kidnap victims who, over time, become sympathetic to their captors, and can, accordingly have no application whatsoever to Dr Swire. But why should Peter Fraser allow anything as trivial as accuracy get in the way of a good headline?
Dr Swire and Rev John Mosey attended virtually the whole of the proceedings in the Scottish Court at Zeist. Both of them, having heard the evidence, have the very gravest doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi. Those doubts are shared by many others who have taken the trouble to consider the evidence and the trial court's written opinion. And, of course, the independent (and expert) Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the case back to the Criminal Appeal Court on six grounds, one of which is that in respect of crucial findings in fact, no reasonable court could have reached those conclusions on the evidence led.
For Peter Fraser in these circumstances to suggest that a relative who doubts the validity of Megrahi's conviction is labouring under a psychological aberration such as Stockholm syndrome is outrageously insulting and casts more doubt on the psychological state of the maker of the statement than on that of the person at whom it is directed.
Smearing is one of the usual tactics of the secret services and those affiliated to them.
ReplyDeleteDr Swire is the person who I most admire.