Tam Dalyell: The Megrahi I know

The website of The Times runs an opinion piece by Tam Dalyell, former MP and Father of the House of Commons, which will again presumably appear in Saturday's print edition. Here is part of it:

'My deep conviction, as a “professor of Lockerbie studies” over a 20-year period is that neither al-Megrahi nor Libya had any role in the destruction of Pan Am 103.

'I believe they were made a scapegoat in 1990-91 by an American government that had decided to go to war with Iraq and did not want complications with Syria and Iran, which had harboured the real perpetrators of the terrible deed. Libya and its “operatives”, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah (al-Megrahi's co-accused) and al-Megrahi, only came into the frame at a very late date. In my informed opinion, al-Megrahi has been the victim of one of the most spectacular (and expensive) miscarriages of justice in history. (...)

'Visiting him in prison, I was struck by his self-possession - a self-possession that had struck many people at his trial, possibly because it never occurred to him that he would be found guilty. It explains my passionate involvement over 20 years, as well as that of Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh. It was on our say-so that Libya ever surrendered its citizens to Scottish justice. Whatever happens to al-Megrahi, faced with advanced terminal cancer, the case will continue because on trial is the international reputation of Scottish justice and particularly of the Crown Office...

'Almost the last thing that al-Megrahi said to me was: “Yes, of course I want to go back to Tripoli. I have my wife and my five children are growing up, but I want to go back an innocent man.”

'Some of us are determined to find the truth and justice that we believe will find him innocent.'

On 6 November 2008, The Times printed the following "clarification":

'In Tam Dalyell's article in last Saturday's Times “A civilised, caring man - not a mass murderer”, Mr Dalyell claimed that the prosecution in the Lockerbie case had lied to Lord Coulsfield, the High Court judge, when it told the trial court at Camp Zeist that it had full confidence in the evidence of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci. Mr Dalyell's claim was based on reported comments made by a previous Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, that Mr Gauci was an unreliable witness who was “not the full shilling”. The present Lord Advocate has asked us to point out that Lord Fraser made it clear in 2005 that he did not have any reservations about any aspect of the prosecution, and had no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci's evidence and, therefore, that there is no substance to the serious allegation in the article that the Crown had lied to the court about its confidence in the evidence of Tony Gauci.'

It should be noted that there is, and could be, no denial that Lord Fraser of Carmyllie used the words attributed to him by Tam Dalyell.

Lockerbie bomber wants to stay in Scotland if freed

This is the headline over an article by Charlene Sweeney on the website of The Times and which will presumably appear in the print edition of the newspaper on Saturday, 1 November. It reads in part:

'Al-Megrahi's desire to stay in Scotland raises the prospect that taxpayers will be forced to foot the bill for his treatment, which is likely to include radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

'Tony Kelly, al-Megrahi's lawyer, denied that he could become a drain on public finances. “I don't think there would be any bar to him accessing the health service, but he would probably take care of it himself,” he said. “There wouldn't be an incursion on the public purse.”

'Al-Megrahi could be released immediately if he is granted bail at a hearing in the High Court. His defence team are seeking interim liberation after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court in June last year.

'Other factors they may ask judges to take into consideration are his deteriorating health and the delay in the appeal process since the commission ruled 17 months ago his conviction could have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Al-Megrahi lost a previous appeal in 2002.

'The Crown Office would not comment on the hearing ahead of next Thursday, but it is thought that it will vigorously contest the attempt. (...)

'Professor Black said yesterday that he could see no legal argument for refusing bail to al-Megrahi.

'“If the court follows standard procedure they simply look to see if this person has put forward grounds of appeal that could lead to the quashing of a conviction. His grounds are not nonsense, they were decided by the commission. According to the standard norms that apply to convicted prisoners pending appeal he satisfies the criteria, in my view.”

'Dan Cohen, who lost his daughter Theodora in the tragedy, said: “I want to see al-Megrahi die in jail.”'

The full article can be read here.

Libya completes payments for US terror victims

Libya has paid $1.5 billion into a fund to compensate the families of American victims of Libyan-linked terror attacks in the 1980s, clearing a final hurdle to full normalization of ties between Washington and Tripoli, the State Department said Friday.

In exchange, under a deal worked out earlier this year, the Bush administration will restore the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismiss pending compensation cases, it said.

Spokesman Sean McCormack called it "a laudable milestone" giving "a measure of justice to families of U.S. victims of terrorism and clearing the way for continued and expanding U.S.-Libyan partnership."

The money will go into a $1.8 billion fund that will pay $1.5 billion in claims for the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1986 bombing of a German disco. Another $300 million will go to Libyan victims of U.S. airstrikes ordered in retaliation for the disco bombing. (...)

The final deposit had been expected in early September but was inexplicably delayed, angering some in Congress who have thus far refused to lift holds on the nomination of a new U.S. ambassador to Libya and funds for the construction of a new U.S. embassy in Tripoli.

A first partial payment to the fund was received on Oct. 9, just days after the opening of a U.S. trade office in Libya's capital and a historic visit there last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit the country in more than 50 years. (...)

The developments come amid a huge increase in interest from U.S. firms, particularly in the energy sector, in doing business in Libya, where European companies have had much greater access in recent years. Libya's proven oil reserves are the ninth largest in the world, close to 39 billion barrels, and vast areas remain unexplored for new deposits.

[From Matthew Lee of Associated Press.

As this article on the Al Arabiya website makes clear, the compensation covers the families of all the victims of the Lockerbie disaster, not just the US ones.]

Bomber release 'common humanity'

The BBC News website has an article reporting the views of Dr Jim Swire on the issue of the application to the High Court for interim liberation of Abdelbaset Megrahi pending his appeal. It reads in part:

'Dr Swire's daughter, Flora, was one of the 270 victims of the 1988 atrocity.

'He said the question of whether Megrahi should be released was one of "common humanity". (...)

'Dr Swire said he supported Megrahi being granted interim liberation because the Libyan reportedly does not have long to live.

'He claimed that keeping Megrahi away from his family in such a situation would amount to "torture".

'And Dr Swire said that "greater speed" in his appeal could have avoided the dilemma involving a "dying man who may or may not be guilty of the dreadful crime alleged against him".

'He said: "The man has reportedly got months to live.

'"My personal feelings are that to force him to remain segregated from his family and his five children for the short remaining time that he may have before him would amount to exquisite torture." (...)

'A decision on Megrahi's application for release will be made next week.'

Interim liberation: law and practice

The relevant statutory provision relating to the granting of bail to convicted prisoners pending an appeal is section 112 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, the relevant portions of which read:

“(1)… the High Court may, if it thinks fit, on the application of a convicted person, admit him to bail pending the determination of … his appeal.

“(2) The High Court shall not admit a convicted person to bail unless (a) the application for bail … states reasons why it should be granted … and (b) the prosecutor has had an opportunity to be heard on the application.”

The traditional approach of the High Court to the granting of bail pending an appeal is set out in guidelines issued by Lord Justice Clerk Wheatley in 1984 who stated that “it is not for [the judge considering bail] to pre-empt the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal [on the appeal itself]. Accordingly if there are grounds of appeal which ex facie would warrant the quashing of the conviction if sustained, in such circumstances interim liberation should be granted.”

There can be little doubt that this test is satisfied in Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case. Not only have voluminous grounds of appeal been lodged which, if sustained, would lead to the quashing of the conviction; but also an independent review body, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, has reported that the conviction may have constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown has on occasion sought to argue that a convicted prisoner should be released on bail pending his appeal only in exceptional circumstances. This argument was decisively rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in the case of Ogilvie, Petitioner 1998 SCCR 187.

Other factors that may be relevant to the court’s decision in Mr Megrahi’s case are (1) the delay to which he has been subjected while his application was in the hands of the SCCRC and since his case was returned to the High Court; and (2) the information that has recently become public about the grave state of his health.

The court normally, though not invariably, does not reserve judgement but announces its decision at the end of the hearing.

Megrahi applies for bail

The BBC News website reports that an application for interim liberation (bail) has been lodged with the High Court of Justiciary on behalf of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The article reads in part:

'The man convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has applied to be released on bail, pending his appeal.

'Arguments are due to be heard in the High Court in Edinburgh next Thursday [6 November]. (...)

'BBC Scotland's Home Affairs correspondent Reeval Alderson said: "In the past, Megrahi has said he didn't want to come out of prison except as a free man. But things have changed lately.

'"He is suffering from an advanced form of prostate cancer which has spread to other parts of his body.

'"Nobody is saying whether his condition is terminal or talking about his life expectancy but it's quite clear Megrahi is very ill and now he has finally applied to the High Court to be allowed to be released while the legal moves go on and they're very, very protracted, they're very, very lengthy indeed."

'Mr Alderson said there had been no reaction from official sources, such as the Crown Office apart from to confirm that the hearing would take place. (...)

'Mr Alderson said he had just spoken to one set of American relatives who felt Megrahi should allowed out as there was no point in keeping him in prison.

'However, he added: "I don't think that is a view that is widely shared though, particularly with the American relatives."

'After the disclosure that Megrahi had prostate cancer, there were calls for his appeal against his 2001 conviction to be speeded up.'

The full report can be read here.

The STV News report on the issue can be watched here.

The South African connexion

[I am grateful to Patrick Haseldine for the following, written in response to various recent press contentions that a high-powered South African delegation was "hauled off" Pan Am flight 103.]

Both Magnus Linklater in the The Times ("Lockerbie questions demand an answer") and David Maddox in The Scotsman ("Was Lockerbie suspect working for the US?") are making the same mistake. They refer to senior South African figures being "hauled off" the plane, which is demonstrably untrue.

Following the first screening of Allan Francovich's film The Maltese Double Cross, which first revealed a South African connection to Lockerbie, a Reuters news agency report of 12 November 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:REUTERS12NOV94.jpg) clarified what actually happened. A 23-strong South African delegation - including Foreign Minister Pik Botha, Defence Minister Magnus Malan and Military Intelligence Chief C J Van Tonder - were travelling by South African Airways from Johannesburg. Their inbound flight inexplicably cut out a stopover at Frankfurt, which was SAA's European hub, and arrived early at Heathrow. The London embassy booked Botha and five of the party on Pan Am Flight 101 to New York for the signing of the Namibia Independence Agreement at UN headquarters on 22 December 1988. The remaining 17 members of the party returned from Heathrow on the SAA aircraft to Johannesburg.

UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, had been booked to travel by Sabena from Brussels (where he had addressed a Committee of the European Parliament) to New York for the same signing ceremony. However, Carlsson was persuaded by the South Africans to stopover at Heathrow and became the most high profile of the 270 Lockerbie victims.

Apartheid South Africa is thus intimately involved and might even have planned and executed the bombing without the involvement of any other country. This scenario neatly explains why Botha & Co did not need any forewarning by the CIA, and destroys the myth that they were "hauled off" the flight.

While it might be judicially and politically convenient now to shift the blame from the ailing Abdelbaset Megrahi to the dead terrorist Abu Nidal, we would be no nearer to the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. I continue to believe that, to get to the truth, a United Nations Inquiry into the death of UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing (http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UNInquiry/) is required. Let us hope that when the new US president takes office next January we will finally get this UN Inquiry.

Lockerbie questions demand an answer

This is the headline over an article in today's issue of The Times by Magnus Linklater, the newspaper's Scotland Editor (and the editor of The Scotsman in the bygone days when that title was still a serious and responsible journal).

The article reads in part:

'You do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognise that nagging questions have gnawed away at the Lockerbie case since the first investigations began. The veteran campaigner, Tam Dalyell, who describes himself as a “professor of Lockerbie studies”, is convinced that neither al-Megrahi nor the Libyan Government had any involvement. He, along with the Rev John Mosey and Dr Jim Swire, who both lost daughters in the atrocity, believe that there has been a spectacular miscarriage of justice.

'They have raised questions about basic evidence in the original case. They have challenged eyewitness accounts offered by the chief prosecution witness, the Maltese shopowner who originally identified Megrahi as a suspect. They have raised doubts about the forensic evidence, and have pointed out that al-Megrahi, a civilised and intelligent man, is a most unlikely terrorist.

'Last weekend, their campaign was given fresh impetus when Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East correspondent, reported that Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist responsible for some of the worst attacks of the 1970s and 1980s, may have been working for the Americans before the invasion of Iraq. Secret documents - the very phrase is a conspiracy idiom - written by Saddam Hussein's security services state that he had been colluding with the Americans trying to find evidence linking Saddam and al-Qaeda. Abu Nidal's alleged suicide in 2002 may have been an execution by the Iraqis for his betrayal.

'From this tenuous connection stems the idea that the US security services may have had previous contacts within Abu Nidal's terrorist organisation, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, which many experts have long believed was the real perpetrator of Lockerbie.

'Mr Dalyell, who thinks there may be some weight to this theory, points to incidents such as notices that went up in the US Embassy in Moscow in the days before the bombing, warning diplomats not to travel on PanAm flights, and how senior South African figures were hauled off the plane before the flight, almost as if there had been advance warning.

'For me, this kind of evidence strays into the territory of “the second gunman theory” that bedevilled the Kennedy assassination. But there is one aspect of the case that I have never understood: why was it that, for the first 18 months of the investigation, Scottish police, US investigators and European security agents were convinced that the perpetrators were Abu Nidal's PFLP? And why was it that, in the run-up to the Gulf War, when good relations with Syria and Iran were important to Western interests, attention switched abruptly from Abu Nidal's terrorists, and on to Libya?

'These matters have never satisfactorily been explained, and in the interests of common justice they should be addressed. For the sake of the Flight 103 victims, for the wider interests of Western security, and for the man now dying in a Scottish prison, there is a need for a proper inquiry. It does not have to be as wideranging as the Warren Commission that examined the Kennedy case, but it does need to be international, and to have US backing. The appeal in Edinburgh next year will examine legal aspects of the case, but it cannot extend to the wider issues that demand resolution.

'Just possibly a new president taking office next January will find in his in-tray persuasive evidence pointing to a reopening of the case. There are powerful moral reasons for dusting it off and asking a basic question: who was responsible for Britain's worst terrorist outrage?'

The full article can be accessed here.

Fate of Lockerbie bomber is now in hands of SNP minister

This is the headline over a post on Michael White's politics blog on The Guardian's website. It reads in part:

'Why is [Megrahi] in the news again as well as being in Greenock prison on the lower Clyde? He has always denied his guilt, lost an appeal in March 2002, but has been given leave by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to appeal again. (...)

'If the families, not all of whom regard the conviction as doubtful, are prepared to let him go, why should we think otherwise?

'My only further thought from the period is that Colonel Gadafy's Libya in the 80s was a friendless whipping boy for US anger, impotence and frustration about the Arab world. It was the decade when Ronald Reagan had it bombed from UK bases for no convincing reason. (Margaret Thatcher agreed only because she felt she owed him one for help retaking the Falklands.)

'Syria, far guiltier of anti-American actions, as I recall, was treated more leniently for reasons of state, though no longer. (...)

'It is all far from Greenock prison, where al-Megrahi is apparently dying. Over to you, Mr MacAskill [the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government].'

The full article can be read here.

[Note by RB: It is not strictly accurate to say that Abdelbaset Megrahi's fate rests with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill. Seeking release on compassionate grounds is one avenue open to him, and the decision on that does rest with the Scottish Government. But it is also open to Mr Megrahi to apply to the High Court for interim liberation (bail, in other words) pending his appeal. The decision on that issue would be a matter for the judges of the High Court and not for politicians or ministers.]

Abu Nidal 'was a US spy'

This is the gravamen of a long article by Robert Fisk in The Independent on 25 October. It was in reaction to this article that Tam Dalyell and I made a call for an inquiry into the possible relevance of this revelation to the Lockerbie disaster, which is reported in a number of newspapers today, including The Scotsman. I hasten to add that Mr Dalyell and I did not suggest that Abu Nidal had been the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine: General Command. This is the reporter's own embroidery. Mr Dalyell and I are well aware that the "distinction" of leading the PFLP:GC rests with Ahmed Jibril.

What should happen now

[My opinions about what should happen to Abdelbaset Megrahi now that he has been diagnosed with late stage prostate cancer are canvassed in a number of Sunday newspapers. What follows are my real views, expressed in my own words.]

Since 31 January 2001 -- the day the guilty verdict against Abdelbaset Megrahi was announced by the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist – I have made no secret of my belief in his innocence. His conviction, on the evidence led at the trial, was nothing short of astonishing. It constitutes, in my view, the worst miscarriage of justice perpetrated by a Scottish criminal court since the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909 for the murder of Marion Gilchrist.

In this context it is highly relevant to note that one – by far the most important – of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice in Mr Megrahi’s case was its view that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Lockerbie court did on a matter absolutely central to its reasons for convicting. The SCCRC said:

“[T]he Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court's judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary's House [which were in the suitcase that also contained the bomb] took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important to the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser. Likewise, the trial court's conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant's case.”

But even if there were not overwhelming grounds for doubting the justifiability of the court’s verdict, there are other reasons for pressing for his release from prison, given his recent diagnosis of late-stage, untreatable prostate cancer.

The first of these reasons is compassion and humanity. There is a practice – though not an invariable one -- within the Scottish Prison Service of releasing a prisoner who has only three months to live. We none of us know whether that stage has been reached in the progression of Mr Megrahi’s illness. But is it really necessary for those in whose power the decision lies, to wait until they are certain that that point has arrived? This particular prisoner finds himself incarcerated in a foreign country whose culture is alien to him. His sense of isolation at this time and the psychological strain on him must be greater than what would be suffered by a Scottish prisoner in a Scottish jail. Would it not be both appropriate as well as merciful for this to be recognized by the Scottish authorities?

Secondly, the delay in bringing Mr Megrahi’s current appeal to the hearing stage has been appalling. Had a measure of urgency been shown, it is entirely conceivable that the appeal could have been over before now and the appellant back with his wife and children in his own country, a free man. The SCCRC had his case under consideration for more than three years before referring it back to the High Court. The submission made to them was, admittedly, a long and detailed one. But the issue of the trial court’s unreasonable findings, mentioned above, is a very simple and straightforward one and required virtually no investigation other that a perusal of the relevant portions of the transcript of evidence. If the SCCRC decided early in its deliberations that the case was going to have to be referred back on this ground – and it is difficult to believe that it did not – then delaying taking that step for three years is hard to justify.

Then there is the delay that has occurred after the SCCRC referred the case to the High Court in June 2007.

More than sixteen months have passed since then. More than thirteen months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than ten months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court. Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?

The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze is not in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). These tactics include, to name but a few, raising difficulties about allowing the appellant access to productions used at the original trial; seeking to overturn previous appeal court decisions on the scope of the appeal in SCCRC references; and claiming public interest immunity on “national security” grounds in respect of documents which have been in the hands of the Crown for more than twelve years and which have been seen by the SCCRC. The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done little, if anything, meaningful to curb it.

Abdelbaset Megrahi has been shabbily dealt with by the Scottish criminal justice system. The Scottish Government has an opportunity now to treat him with compassion and dignity. I, for one, hope that it has the moral courage to seize this opportunity.

Sunday newspapers on Megrahi's plight

The Sunday Herald runs a long article by John Bynorth, largely based on an interview with me, claiming that Abdelbaset Megrahi has been treated shabbily by the Scottish criminal justice system. It focuses primarily upon the delay in bringing his current appeal against a highly questionable conviction to fruition.

The Sunday Mail prints an article claiming that Megrahi wishes to be released following the diagnosis of advanced stage prostate cancer, but wishes to remain in Scotland (and to be joined here by his wife and children) for palliative care.

The Sunday Times runs an opinion piece by its columnist, Joan McAlpine. It reads in part:

'Last year, after four years of deliberation, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission suggested there may have been a miscarriage of justice. The new appeal will take place next year, missing the 20th anniversary of Lockerbie this December. By then, Megrahi will probably be dead as well.

'Robert Black QC, the emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, believes a miscarriage of justice has indeed occurred and is scathing about the legal establishment’s apparent reluctance to put this right. He has accused the Lord Advocate and the British government of resorting to “every delaying tactic in the book” to obstruct an appeal, exposing Scottish justice to ridicule around the world. This view is shared by Professor Hans Kochler, the UN observer at the Camp Zeist trial, and one of its biggest critics.

'Given the circumstances, there are many who believe it appropriate for the Libyan to be released early, so he can spend his last days with his wife and children. The law, quite correctly, allows the early release of prisoners who face imminent death. There are some, however, who the public would never tolerate releasing, even on humanitarian grounds, such as West and Huntley. But if Megrahi is guilty, then why should his terrible murders be seen as less serious than their terrible murders? It is easier to be compassionate if you think the man is innocent. Some individuals, including Tam Dalyell MP, describe him as a quiet, cultured man who is incapable of such a ghastly act. I do seem to remember the late Lord Longford saying something similar about the child killer Myra Hindley. Nobody paid much attention.

'For the moment, Megrahi is a convicted child killer — the youngest person on PanAm 103 was nine months old. Many, including the families of most American victims, are convinced of his guilt. The families have, after all, received millions of dollars of compensation from Gaddafi, his employer. This leaves a terrible taste. If Megrahi, an intelligence agent, placed the bomb, it was at the command of a president who is now our new best friend.

'It is for the court of appeal to determine the facts. Black argues it can proceed even if Megrahi dies. Beyond that, we need to nail allegations that Scottish justice was compromised. Was evidence withheld from the defence for political reasons? Why is the appeal process so slow the appellant is likely to die first? Lockerbie is more damaging to our legal system’s reputation than the Shirley McKie fingerprint scandal. Like the McKie case, it should be scrutinised by a full public inquiry.

'As for Megrahi, he should be treated with compassion in his last days. But unless and until his conviction is overturned, that must be within the walls of Greenock prison.'

Letter from Dr Jim Swire

Megrahi: An unfolding human tragedy

Most people would not wish to exploit or extend the misery of others. It is so easy to hate, yet to harbour corrosive hate is also to harm oneself. Does anyone suppose they would feel any lasting benefit were Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi forced to die in prison, far from his family? Would such a fate advantage those still grieving after 20 years for the loss of loved ones at Lockerbie? I don't believe it would.

More than five years after his application, his next appeal against his 27-year sentence still does not have a starting date. All we know is that our Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided his trial might have been unfair. The absence of certainty is in a sense our fault. We have been far too slow. Look at the dilemma tardiness has brought upon us. But the lack of certainty is irrelevant: guilty or innocent, we have an unfolding human tragedy. We do not have a code of punishment that condemns people to die in a foreign prison, so far from their family.

The world is watching whether we show magnanimity or vengeance. To those who might wish the maximum misery for this man I would quote John Donne: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls - it tolls for thee."

[From today's issue of The Herald. It can be read here.]

Reaction from HMP Greenock

Gaddafi forked out £1500 to have satellite telly fitted at [Greenock] jail when Megrahi was moved there from Barlinnie three years ago. He also provided cash for the channel subscription fees.

The prisoners get the full range of sport and top movies, but no porn channels. (...)

The bomber was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer last month and was told a few days ago that the disease has spread to other parts of his body.

The Record's source said: "There has been an uproar since the cons heard Megrahi was dying.

"He's already well liked, and the fact he got good telly for everyone only helps his standing.

"The Libyan embassy paid for Sky to be piped into Megrahi's hall. The other two halls weren't happy, so the Libyans agreed to pay for them as well. (...)

A Scottish Prison Service spokeswoman said: "All the prisoners at Greenock have access to Sky TV, paid for by the Common Good Fund."

Megrahi is appealing against his conviction for murdering 270 people in the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 in 1988.

Lockerbie campaigner Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the atrocity and doubts Megrahi's guilt, has said he should be allowed to go home to die.

[From an article in today's Daily Record. It can be read here.]

Release bid "hypothetical"

First Minister Alex Salmond has declined to answer "hypothetical" questions about the treatment of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. (...)

Mr Salmond said there was no application before the Scottish Government and it would be wrong to "prejudge" any such process. (...)

The possibility of a transfer back to Libya has also been raised.

Mr Salmond said the Scottish Government never commented on the medical condition of any prisoner.

"I note that Mr Megrahi's legal team have asked for privacy on that matter," he said.

"And, secondly, there's no application for prisoner transfer or anything else before the Scottish Government, therefore there's no consideration being given to it because there's no application."

He said he would not answer hypothetical questions.

"One thing you could never do under any circumstances is prejudge how you would treat any such application - if indeed one arrived," he said.

"As far as the medical condition of any prisoner in Scotland is concerned, we don't discuss it - that's a matter for them and their medical advisers."

[From a report on the BBC News website. The full text can be read here.]

The Scotsman's leading article

A kind reader has sent me the text of The Scotsman's editorial. It is headed "If Lockerbie bomber is dying, he should go free". The final three paragraphs read:

'In the event that Megrahi dies before the appeal, it is legally possible for the case to be continued on behalf of the relatives of those who were murdered in the bombing. While it would be second best, that legal avenue should certainly be explored in the untimely event that Megrahi succumbs to his illness. The one thing that must not be allowed to happen is for the truth regarding this atrocity to die with the only person found guilty - on questionable grounds - of perpetrating it.

'If Megrahi was not involved, or even if only a minor part of the conspiracy, then who is guilty? One theory that remains is that Iran commissioned the attack, perhaps employing Palestinian guerrillas, in retaliation for the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the US military. Whatever the truth, it must be exposed.

'This leaves the final new twist to this murky tale: should Megrahi be allowed to die outside his prison walls? There is a place for compassion in the administration of justice because that is what makes our culture different from that of the terrorist or suicide bomber. But we would have to be very sure that Megrahi is truly as ill as is reported.'

Detailed coverage in The Scotsman

In the past, I have been critical of the weakness of The Scotsman's coverage of issues relating to the Lockerbie disaster and the ongoing appeal by Abdelbaset Megrahi. Today, however, I wish to deliver a bouquet rather than a brickbat.

The paper runs three articles (plus an editorial, which I have not read because it is in the subscription section of the paper's website). Two of the articles are by Michael Howie and are headlined "Al-Megrahi: the dilemma" and "Lockerbie bombing: Appeal could go ahead even if he's dead". The third is an op-ed piece by Tam Dalyell under the headline "Issue is not only Megrahi, but integrity of Scottish legal system … this case does not cease simply because of death".

Some serious coverage

The best coverage that I have so far found of the Megrahi health issue is to be found on the website of The Herald. It includes a video comment from veteran Lockerbie campaigner and ex-MP, Tam Dalyell. The article can be accessed here.

The website of The Daily Telegraph also has an informative article by the paper's Scottish correspondent.

Transfer of rights of appeal

Given that the mills of the Scottish criminal justice system grind exceeding slow, it seems worthwhile to consider what the legal position would be if Abdelbaset Megrahi were to succumb to his illness before the current appeal has been decided.

In such circumstances, the provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 303A, relating to the transfer of the rights of appeal of a deceased person,
would come into play. This section reads:

'(1) Where a person convicted of an offence has died, any person may, subject to the provisions of this section, apply to the High Court for an order authorising him to institute or continue any appeal which could have been or has been instituted by the deceased.

'(2) An application for an order under this section may be lodged with the Clerk of Justiciary within three months of the deceased’s death or at such later time as the Court may, on cause shown, allow. (...)

'(4) Where an application is made for an order under this section and the applicant—

(a) is an executor of the deceased; or

(b) otherwise appears to the Court to have a legitimate interest,

the Court shall make an order authorising the applicant to institute or continue any appeal which could have been instituted or continued by the deceased; and, subject to the provisions of this section, any such order may include such ancillary or supplementary provision as the Court thinks fit.

'(5) The person in whose favour an order under this section is made shall from the date of the order be afforded the same rights to carry on the appeal as the deceased enjoyed at the time of his death and, in particular, where any time limit had begun to run against the deceased the person in whose favour an order has been made shall have the benefit of only that portion of the time limit which remained unexpired at the time of the death.

'(6) In this section “appeal” includes any sort of application, whether at common law or under statute, for the review of any conviction, penalty or other order made in respect of the deceased in any criminal proceedings whatsoever.'

Were Abdelbaset Megrahi to die before the conclusion of the appeal, it seems probable that resort would be made to this procedure and that the appeal would continue. But in simple humanity, surely all concerned in the current proceedings should strive to the utmost to secure that the appeal proceeds with the greatest possible expedition, in order to render resort to the transfer procedure superfluous.

Lockerbie bomber diagnosed with prostate cancer... and could now be moved from his cell to 'a more comfortable environment'

This is the headline over a lengthy story, in which the source of the newspaper's information remains undisclosed, in today's issue of the Daily Mail. It speculates about the stage which the disease has reached and the possibility of Abdelbaset Megrahi's being moved from Greenock Prison to a more suitable treatment location.

The full article can be read here.

If the story is true, it provides a further reason for the High Court to stamp firmly on the obstructionist tactics of the Crown in the ongoing appeal and to insist on a full hearing at the earliest possible date.

The BBC News website has a short article on the subject, with confirmation of the diagnosis from Mr Megrahi's solicitor, Tony Kelly.

High Court decision on Lockerbie case is to be welcomed

This is the headline over a letter in today's issue of The Herald from Dr Jim Swire. It can be read here.

Monkey business?

Your vigilant reporter noticed at yesterday’s session of the High Court in Edinburgh that Dr Jim Swire was wearing only one hearing-aid and not his normal two. Perhaps the hearing in one ear had dramatically improved, I thought. Regrettably not. What happened was that while the intrepid Dr Swire was walking recently along a jungle trail in Sarawak, one of his hearing-aids mysteriously went missing. Was it purloined by a proboscis monkey, appropriated by an orang-utan or simply lassoed by a liana? Yet another Lockerbie-related mystery.

Lockerbie bombing families step up calls for full enquiry

This is the headline over a story posted this afternoon on the website of The Scotsman. It reads in part:

'Speaking after today's hearing, Dr [Jim] Swire said: "[It is proposed to draft] a letter [calling for a full enquiry] which we will be asking various notable people to sign on behalf of the relatives. It defines why we are still impatient with what has been revealed to us so far.

'"We have always called for a comprehensive inquiry and one of the great areas of irritation is the question of why the disaster was not prevented and why our loved ones were allowed to be murdered."

'He added: "In addition to that there are questions surrounding the conduct of the case, the conduct of the investigation, the role of the Scottish authorities in the investigation and the role of both the British and US authorities in the drawing up of evidence."

'Dr Swire said in the years since the tragedy the families had met many people who had shown a "heartening interest" in the case.

'"We hope many of them will be prepared to sign a letter which basically will call for a thorough inquiry into all the questions that are still outstanding surrounding this terrible case.

'"We anticipate that letter would then be published, on or around the 20th anniversary."'

The full text of the article can be read here.

Did the SCCRC give 5 or 6 reasons?

The High Court in today's Opinion refers to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's having given five reasons for deciding that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. The SCCRC itself said that there were six reasons (para 2.8 of the SCCRC press release) though it itemised only four. What is the explanation for the discrepancy? I believe it to be the following.

The SCCRC counted (a) the failure of the Crown before the Zeist trial to hand over to the defence the mysterious document(s) in respect of which public interest immunity has now been claimed by the UK Foreign Secretary and (b) the evidence contained within that document as two separate reasons. It looks as if the High Court is lumping these two aspects together and counting them as amounting to only one single reason.

Comprehensive victory for appellant

The High Court has totally rejected the Crown's contention that, as a matter of law, the appellant was entitled to argue only those grounds of appeal that formed the basis of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's decision to refer Abdelbaset Megrahi's case back to the court. It was always accepted by the appellant's legal team that the court had a discretion to reject any individual proposed ground of appeal (eg on the basis that it appeared on the face of it to be unarguable). But this was not good enough for the Crown, who insisted that it was a matter of law that the only grounds that the appellant was entitled to advance and entitled to have heard were those accepted by the SCCRC. It was in order to achieve such a ruling (which would have been contrary to decisions of the court in earlier cases) that a bench of five judges had to be convened. The Crown's argument has been unanimously (and, with respect, correctly) rejected by all five judges.

The Herald reports Tony Kelly, Mr Megrahi's solicitor, as saying:

"It is a complete victory for the appellant's position before the court and a complete rejection of the Crown's argument.

"The Crown employed lots of resources to try to restrict the court and they have been stopped in their tracks.

"It is an important victory for Mr Al Megrahi."

The following is an official summary of the court's Opinion. The full 83-paragraph Opinion can be read here.

SUMMARY

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred to this court the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi. The reference document runs to 790 pages. In it detailed consideration is given to a wide range of representations made on behalf of the applicant (the present appellant), as well as to the Commission's own investigations. Some of these representations found favour with the Commission; others did not. In making the reference the Commission identified five reasons which led it to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. These reasons are set out in Chapters 21 to 25 inclusive of the reference document.

The appellant has, within the time limit specified by the Act of Adjournal, lodged grounds of appeal. These run to 317 pages. They include (sometimes reformulated) matters considered by the Commission but not included in its reasons for making the reference; they also include matters not raised with or discussed by the Commission.

The Crown contends that the appellant can not, as of right, require the court to entertain the full grounds of appeal lodged by him. While it is accepted that the court may, in the exercise of its discretion, entertain any of the grounds tabled, it is contended that the appellant is not entitled to have entertained grounds going beyond the reasons stated by the Commission in their reference. The debate which we heard was concerned with discussion of that contention.

The court has heard wide-ranging submissions from the Crown and from the appellant's counsel. The issue is one of statutory construction - in particular, the meaning and effect of section 194B(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, as amended by the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997. The arguments advanced by the parties and the court's discussion of them are fully set out in the Opinion of the Court which is now available. The court's conclusion is that, for the reasons given, it rejects the statutory construction urged by the Advocate depute and holds that the appellant is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits. The mechanisms which the court will adopt for the purpose of making such an adjudication will require to be considered in due course. Whether it is desirable, having regard to among other things the use of judicial resources, that a reference appellant should have unrestricted scope in what he lays before the court for adjudication is a matter for Parliament; but this court must apply the statute as presently framed.

The court will put the case out for a procedural hearing at which it will consider parties' proposals for the management of this complex appeal.

The "scope of the appeal" decision

It has been announced that the High Court's decision on the scope of the appeal will be issued at 12 noon today. The question whether the appeal should be confined to the six issues on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction might have constituted a miscarriage of justice was argued before five judges over four days from 17 to 20 June 2008.

Law Officers to join Faculty of Advocates

Elish Angiolini QC , the Lord Advocate and Frank Mulholland QC, the Solicitor General for Scotland, are to become members of the Faculty of Advocates.

In a statement issued today the Faculty said: “The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates Richard Keen QC, is pleased to announce the prospective admission to membership of the Faculty of Elish Angiolini QC, the Lord Advocate and Frank Mulholland QC, the Solicitor General.

“Mrs Angiolini and Mr Mulholland have played a leading role in the legal profession for a number of years and it is entirely appropriate that they should join the Faculty with its long tradition of service to the justice system and the people of Scotland.”

They will be formally admitted to membership of the Faculty at a calling ceremony on November 7.

A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said:

"Mrs Angiolini and Mr Mulholland are honoured to have been invited to apply to join the Faculty of Advocates, which is highly respected for its central role in delivering independent legal services in Scotland."

[From the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine, The Firm. The Dean of Faculty, Richard Keen QC, was senior counsel for Lamin Fhimah, the acquitted co-accused in the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. There is an interesting article on Mrs Angiolini's forthcoming membership of the Faculty of Advocates, and the possible reasons for it, on The Scotsman website.]

Tripoli Post on payment into compensation fund

The website of The Tripoli Post (Libya's English-language newspaper) has an article on the payment recently made into the compensation fund set up after negotiations in August between the United States and Libya. The article reads in part:

'Libya has started making payments into a $1.8 billion fund to compensate the families of Libyans who were killed by American air strikes on Libya in 1986 and American victims of alleged terror attacks in the 1980s.

'The US State Department said Thursday that the US "received a substantial amount of money" without saying how much. The amount was deposited on Wednesday night.

'The Libyan acted to fulfill a compensation agreement that was signed earlier this year.

'The agreement calls for the creation of a $1.8 billion fund: $1.5 billion for those victims.

'Libya has sought donations from private businesses to help cover its share of the fund. (...)

'Libyan officials said in the past that by paying such high compensations they were buying peace. They have also insisted that Libya had nothing to do with the bombing of the 1988 PanAm airplane over Lockerbie, England [sic].

'Legal experts around the world including in the US and Britain said that the convicted Libyan in the Lockerbie bombing, Abdulbaset El-Megrahi, was innocent and that the Scottish court that sentenced him to life in prison did commit a miscarriage of justice.'

The full article can be read here.

Eighth (public) procedural hearing on 15 October

A further procedural hearing in the ongoing Lockerbie appeal will take place in the High Court of Justiciary on Wednesday, 15 October 2008. Perhaps the opportunity will be taken for the court to announce its decision on the issue of the scope of the appeal (ie whether it must be limited to the six grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that there might have been a miscarriage of justice). This matter was argued on 17 to 20 June 2008 and the court’s decision reserved.

The first in the seemingly endless series of procedural hearings took place on 11 October 2007, one year ago. I repeat what I wrote on this blog on 17 July 2008:

More than a year [now more than fifteen months] has passed since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case back to the Criminal Appeal Court on the basis that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. More than nine months [now more than twelve months] have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than six months [now more than nine months] have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court.

Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?

The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze isn’t in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done nothing meaningful to curb it. This must end. The delay is becoming scandalous. The reputation of Scotland’s criminal justice system is being further tarnished in the eyes of the world.

And all the while a man languishes in Greenock Prison. I have never made any bones about my view that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands is the worst Scottish miscarriage of justice in the past one hundred years, indeed since the conviction of Oscar Slater. But even those who do not share my views, or who are neutral on the issue, would surely accept that the delay in bringing the new appeal to a hearing on the merits is beginning to look cruel and unconscionable.

It is up to the judges to start cracking the whip. The words of Francis Bacon in his essay “Of Judicature” are perhaps worth recalling:

“A judge ought to prepare his way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare his way, by raising valleys and taking down hills: so when there appeareth on either side an high hand, … cunning advantages taken, combination, power, … then is the virtue of a judge seen, to make inequality equal; that he may plant his judgment as upon an even ground.”

US-Libyan relations after the funds transfer

The website of the US Department of State contains a transcript of a question and answer session on US-Libya relations held yesterday by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, C David Welch. It can be read here.

One of the questions Mr Welch was asked was whether non-US Lockerbie relatives would receive payments out of the fund. Here is what he said:

'In the case of the court cases in the United States, the Administration is only authorized, constitutionally and under our law, to address cases of Americans or American nationals. However, the Pan Am settlement is part of this in the sense that it’s an existing settlement which included, you’re correct, non-Americans, for example, people in Scotland on the ground. And they would be embraced by the settlement amounts contemplated on the, if you will, American side of the ledger.'

US says Libya puts "substantial" money in fund

The Reuters Africa website reports that a US official has stated that Libya has deposited a substantial amount of money (though not yet the full agreed amount) in the compensation fund for, amongst others, the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. The first few paragraphs of the report read:

'Libya has deposited a "substantial" sum of money into a compensation fund for victims of terrorism but payments cannot be made until Tripoli gives the remaining agreed amount, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

'"We have received a substantial amount of money in a U.S. account towards compensating the U.S. victims and families with terrorism-related claims against Libya," said the official, who declined to be named.

'He refused to say how much money the Libyans had handed over but the fund is estimated eventually to total about $1.8 billion. It was agreed on in August by the United States and Libya to settle terrorism cases on both sides from the 1980s.

'"We believe that direct deposit of these funds into a U.S. account is evidence of Libya's commitment to fully implementing the claims settlement agreement," the official told reporters.'

The full article can be read here.

Democrats battle Bush over Libyan relations

This is the headline over an article on The Hill, a news website devoted to matters relating to the US Congress. The first few paragraphs read:

'Senate Democrats and the Bush administration continue to butt heads over Libya despite a historic, multibillion-dollar deal that settled claims made against the government of Moammar Gadhafi by terrorist victims’ families.

'The problem, according to lobbyists for the families, is that Libya has yet to pay into a $1.8 billion fund that was to be shared by the victims’ families. Libya agreed to set up the fund in exchange for victims’ families dropping lawsuits against the Libyan government.

'Representatives of the families argue the White House should not be cozying up to Libya when that country is not living up to its side of the bargain. They are turning to their allies in Congress to turn up the pressure on the administration.

'The families and members of Congress are irritated with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s September trip to Libya, the first visit in a half-century by a sitting secretary of State. They’re also unhappy that an assistant secretary at the Commerce Department went to Tripoli last week to help set up a commercial office in the country.'

The full text can be read here.

Gaddafi ‘not excited’ about coming UK visit

From a letter in today's issue of The Herald from a press officer at the Libyan People's Bureau (embassy) in London:

"It is worth mentioning that the Leader is not overly excited about visiting the United Kingdom, either for the coming Oil Summit, or otherwise, and that the Lockerbie case file is closed for ever, according to the relevant United [Nations] Security Council resolutions. The remaining aspect is the legal position regarding the Libyan national, Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is still awaiting a decision regarding his second appeal, which was granted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC)."

Scientific shenanigans

[What follows is an extract from The people who moved the world, a forthcoming book by Jim Swire. It appears here by kind permission of Dr Swire and Peter Biddulph.]

Dr Thomas Hayes was formerly head of the forensics explosives laboratory at the British Royal Armaments Research and Defence Establishment (RARDE), and was a key witness in the prosecution case. I would find his evidence at times breathtaking and worrying.

He was aged fifty three, having retired from his RARDE post ten years earlier. As a bachelor of science honours in chemistry, a master of science in the faculty of forensic science, a doctor of philosophy in the faculty of forensic science, a chartered chemist, and a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry, we might expect an outstanding memory. And yet he seemed reluctant to tell the court why or when he'd retired to start a new career as a chiropodist. When did he start work at Fort Halstead? In July 1974. And when did he leave? " The exact date of my leaving is a little circumspect, but I believe it was in 1990."

He actually retired in 1989, a year that for him may have been circumspect, but was, in relation to our trial, most significant. Hayes, I would discover from our own research, had an uncomfortable history in relation to one other major terrorist event, namely the IRA bombing said to involve seven members of the Maguire family - The Maguire Seven. In that trial Hayes and two close colleagues - including his immediate supervisor Dr Higgs - had performed a central and discredited role, and were found out by a Parliamentary investigation. To add to that Dr Higgs was also discovered to have conspired to mislead the court - with a further two RARDE colleagues of Hayes - in the case of Judith Ward, accused of a bombing in Guildford.

Was Hayes carefully avoiding using the numbers, "1989", so as to deter the court from forming its own conclusion? When asked by friendly advocate Campbell, Hayes could not recall when he became a chiropodist. Nor did his memory improve as he faced defence QC Richard Keen.

"KEEN. Dr Hayes, you told us in your earlier evidence that you were head of the Forensics explosives laboratory at RARDE until 1989? And your change of career from forensic scientist to chiropodist would appear to coincide in point of time with the decision of the Home Secretary to appoint Sir John May to inquire into the trial of those known as the Maguire Seven. Is that true?
HAYES. I believe so. I don't recall clearly."

I am convinced to this day that Hayes really did recall the date and reason. He simply did not dare say it in front of the judges. For in May 1989, even as he examined the fragment which appeared in the evidence bag with a label signed by Detective Constable Gilchrist and altered by unknown persons, a campaign was running in Parliament to have him and his colleagues investigated for their roles in both IRA trials. The Parliamentary findings were published in 1992 and 1996, long after the November 1991 indictments of the Libyan suspects Al-Megrahi and Fhimah.

In his study of the 1976 trial of the Maguire Seven, Sir John May found that the notebooks of three RARDE scientists, including Hayes, had been consciously withheld from the court. The first of the three was Douglas Higgs, Principal Scientific Officer and head of department; second was Walter Elliott, a Senior Scientific Officer; and the third was Hayes, at that time a Higher Scientific Officer.

During the trial, results of tests for traces of nitro-glycerine on skin and fingernails of the Maguire family were firmly maintained by the three scientists to be positive and decisive. Unknown to the court, however, the three had performed a second set of tests plus a series of experiments. Both tests and experiments indicated a negative result and an innocent means of contamination. They therefore knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court. Furthermore, during the inquiry their notebooks were disclosed to Sir John May only at the final "hearing" stage of that Inquiry. Thus he was forced to view the case files only on the last day of his public hearings.

Sir John recorded his unease at the delay, and concluded: "In all the elements of the prosecution case the Crown relied on the evidence of three RARDE scientists. Their accuracy, reliability, fairness and credibility were fundamental to the convictions. In my opinion the whole scientific basis upon which the prosecution was founded was so vitiated that on this basis alone the Court of Appeal should set aside the convictions."

Then the Judith Ward case: in February 1974 twelve people were killed in an IRA bombing attack on a military bus in Guildford. Ward was arrested, and in an almost exact parallel to the Maguire case, the evidence central to her conviction was an analysis of samples taken from the skin and fingernails. These, maintained three lying scientists, were evidence of her guilt. In November of 1974 she was sentenced to life imprisonment. She would spend fifteen years in jail before her innocence could be established.

Hers was one of a spate of miscarriages of justice including the Maguire case and the Birmingham Six. In every appeal, the manipulation of evidence by RARDE forensic scientists was a major feature of the convictions, and its exposure the cause of successful appeals.

Of the dishonesty revealed in the Ward case Lord Justice Glidewell observed that the catalogue of the lamentable omissions included "failure to reveal actual test results, the failure to reveal discrepant Rf values, the suppression of the boot polishing experimental data, the misrepresentation the first firing cell test results, economical witness statements calculated to obstruct inquiry by the defence, and most important of all, oral evidence at the trial in the course of which three senior RARDE scientists knowingly placed a false and distorted picture before the jury. It is, in our judgement, also a necessary inference that the three senior RARDE forensic scientists acted in concert in withholding material evidence."

Of Higgs Lord Justice Glidewell commented "We reject Mr Higgs' account as a deliberate falsehood" Higgs was, in the words of the appeal panel "An experienced chemist… the head of a closely knit team." The words "deliberate falsehood" are clear. The man and two senior members of his organisation were nothing less than liars.

Dealing with another item of evidence, an apparently bomb damaged suitcase, prosecution advocate Campbell QC led Hayes through what seemed an endless list of items in his detailed schedule. The catalogue droned onward for seventy six pages of transcript. Suddenly Hayes reached a thirteen word sentence, almost hidden from, and mostly missed by, the court and the relatives. It was quietly read: "… The suitcase was fitted with a rigid plastics handle, bright metal trim and locks, which were devoid of any proprietary or owner's identification. A rectangular hole had been cut in the hard shell above the handle. The left-hand edge of the suitcase showed evidence of having been damaged by an explosion, with disruption and blackening of the outer skin and bright metal body frame, [etc]

The suitcase belonged to Major Charles McKee, leader of a four-man CIA team returning from Beirut. He, with colleagues Gannon, Lariviere, and O'Connor, were on a mission to explore ways of freeing a group of American hostages held in Lebanon by Iranian-based terrorists. McKee's suitcase contained something that the US government were desperate to keep from the sight of the media or the public. That something remains so important to America's security that for twenty years the White House has never even hinted at what it might be.

McKee's case had been removed by unknown persons, a rectangular hole expertly sawn just below the handle, the contents taken away and new contents put in. Security suitcases of this type were fitted with an incendiary explosive device on the interior of the case, just by the handle. Should the suitcase be opened without the use of a security code, the suitcase would explode and incinerate the contents. Hence the hole sawn into the case to enable disablement of the explosive trigger. A clean set of clothes were inserted and the case was returned to the crime scene and placed on a Lockerbie hillside so that it could be "found". The removal of evidence from a crime scene is of itself a criminal offence. Yet nothing would be said of it in the trial by the prosecution or the judges.

It was and is - for me - a disturbing tale. How had Hayes, publicly demonstrated as untrustworthy, and working in a close-knit organisation discredited by two major criminal cases, become so central to the Lockerbie tragedy? His repeated plays on words, his professions of innocence, his claims of forgetfulness, all were greatly worrying. As a skilled forensic scientist he should have been immediately alerted by the tampering that took place between the finding of McKee's suitcase and its arrival in his laboratory. Label, name tag and contents had been removed, and a set of clothes put into the case. These were recorded as to '...show no evidence of explosive damage, as opposed to the suitcase which was damaged.' It was as if a new set of clothes had been put into the case. And when writing notes about the identification tags and name tag of the suitcase, instead of using the word 'removed', Hayes chose the words 'devoid of'; technically correct, but in the true sense meaning simply not there. What most worried me, and auguring badly for whatever verdict might follow, was the nature of Lord Sutherland's interjection. His Lordship saw intelligence service interference with the trial process and illegal tampering with evidence as no cause for concern. It seemed to me that he was not the first senior trial judge to be fooled by RARDE's economical witness statements calculated to obstruct inquiry by the defence.

"KEEN. A rectangular hole has been cut in the top of the case, and that cannot be attributed in any form to blast damage or impact damage in the disaster, can it?
HAYES. No, it cannot.
KEEN. You are presented with the alleged contents in a bag marked with the name of the owner of the case? That wasn't usual, so far as the presentation of evidence to you at RARDE was concerned, was it?
HAYES. I don't think I can helpfully answer your question. I don't know.
KEEN. You have no recollection of other cases being presented to you in this fashion, for the purposes of your forensic examination?
HAYES. A case outside this Lockerbie investigation?
KEEN. Outside this particular case on page 22.
HAYES. The suitcase?
KEEN. The suitcase.
HAYES. No particular recollection, no.
KEEN. What appears to have happened, Dr. Hayes, in respect of this case, is that it has been the subject of interference or intromission by some third party.
HAYES. The cut hole would seem to suggest that. The rest of the observations may have some quite innocent explanation.
KEEN. Well, was any innocent explanation proffered to you for the state of this evidence when it was given to you for forensic examination at RARDE?
HAYES. I never asked for an explanation.
KEEN. Was any explanation ever volunteered to you?
HAYES. I'm sorry, I don't recall."

Under further cross-examination Hayes was unable to explain his notes concerning a fragment of circuit board from the MEBO MST-13 timer which was said to be part of the bomb. He found and identified it on 12th May 1989, labelling it "PT35-B" on page fifty one of his one hundred and seventy two page loose-leaf notebook. He would maintain that he was the first person to observe this, finding it in the evidence bag signed and dated by DC Gilchrist, mentioned above.

Hayes said he always kept detailed notes, yet his sheets were strangely renumbered for all pages subsequent to that containing information on the circuit board fragment. Was that particular page later written up and inserted so as to create the illusion of a contemporaneous sequence of entries? Richard Keen tried to extract the truth:

"KEEN. Well, whether it be the date or the page number, Dr. Hayes, would you like to explain how the present page fifty one came to be in your examination notes?
HAYES. How it came to be there?
KEEN. Yes.
HAYES. I'm rather lost for words. It came to be there in exactly the same way as every other page came to be there.
KEEN. If that was the case, Dr. Hayes, the pagination of your notes would run quite simply from pages fifty to fifty six, without the need for the alterations that have been made in the pagination of the notes themselves, and the index; is that not the case?
HAYES. Well, I can understand you expressing some concern on page fifty two onwards. But to my mind, fifty two follows from page fifty one, page fifty one follows from page fifty in a perfectly normal way.
KEEN. But page fifty one can only be there because what preceded it as page fifty one has been changed to page fifty two; is that not equally obvious, Dr. Hayes?
HAYES. Well, otherwise there would be two pages fifty one, of course.
KEEN. And what would have appeared at the end of pages fifty two to fifty six now appears at the bottom half of page forty nine? That is the entry for PI/991.
HAYES. Well, the mystery -- apparent mystery of the entry on the bottom of page forty nine, PI/991, to my mind is no more complex than there was space available on the page. And rather than waste part of the page, I inserted an examination note and dated it. The pagination, to me, is of no great consequence. The date and day of the examination, to me, is of much greater consequence.
KEEN. Well, I understood you to tell us that these were contemporaneous notes that you prepared as you were carrying out your examinations; is that right?
HAYES. Yes. But presumably our definitions of "contemporaneous" are different. My -- I only mean that these notes were written on the date on the page, and that the notes were written at the time precisely of the examination, and not any time afterwards.
KEEN. Well, if that had been the case, there would have been no need for the insertion of what is now page fifty one, would there?
HAYES. Well, it is your suggestion that it was inserted. I have no recollection of an insertion of that form at all. If it was, then it was done for a particularly good and perfectly innocent reason.
KEEN. Which you can't now recollect?
HAYES. I wish I could help you. It would save a lot of awkwardness. But I cannot, no."

He was then re-examined by friendly prosecution advocate Campbell, who steered him methodically through his notes on those same pages. Suddenly, lo and behold, Hayes remembered it all.

"CAMPBELL. Does that explanation of the way in which the items detailed in examination notes are listed help to jog your memory?
HAYES. It has helped me, sir, in attempting to explain what appears to be an unfathomable mystery. And I think the solution is very straightforward. And it is this: That when I wrote these notes, I initially did not number the pages… And in numbering the pages, I mistakenly used the number 51 twice, realised my error, after numbering a few pages, and corrected it… So whereas the page numbers may be in sequential order, the dates would not be."

This sudden flash of recall under Campbell's friendly re-examination for me remains unconvincing, and differed totally from his previous explanation, namely that "… the mystery was no more complex than there was space available on the page. And rather than waste part of the page, I inserted an examination note and dated it." As I watched him playing games with the defence, I became more and more convinced that he was misleading the court so as to achieve a prosecution, and not for the first time. He may have made notes, but unlike all similar items which he found, the sole piece of material evidence, PT/35B, claimed to link Bollier and MEBO to the Libyans, was absent from his drawings. And he gave it a higher identification number in his index than a similar sized piece of material he was to examine four weeks later.

Then as Richard Keen probed further concerning the fragment of shirt collar found by Detective Constable Gilchrist, Hayes could not quite remember the moment of finding the fragment.

"KEEN. Do you actually recall finding this fragment?
HAYES. I think so. If I was -- it's tempting to be too helpful in answering your question and saying clearly a very important piece, you must have a memory of it. You have flashbacks of certain important items that you've looked at. I question whether those are flashbacks to the correct case examination or another case examination. So although in my mind there is no question whatever that I did find it within this neck-band, whether I have a clear recollection in my memory of teasing it out, I would prefer not to be too definite about it."

Finally Hayes' notes dated 12th May 1989 recorded the following: "Trapped in the grey material within the blackened area were A. several fragments of black plastics, B. a fragment of a green-coloured circuit board". Thus he exposed, in an unguarded moment, a serious discrepancy from the evidence previously given by DC Thomas Gilchrist.

"KEEN. Dr Hayes, you record in those notes on page fifty one that PT/35B was trapped in the collar of a shirt or in a piece of material. So that fragment could not, presumably, have come to light as far as the police were concerned, prior to it being extracted from the cloth by yourself?
HAYES. That's correct. Yes.
KEEN. It would follow that it could not have been seen by the police prior to the cloth being passed to you at RARDE and the article being extracted by you from the trapped area of material?
HAYES. I'm sure that is the case."

Thus he twice maintained that neither Gilchrist - nor anyone else - could have seen the fragment prior to his probing the collar on his workbench. So we may ask when was the label altered to "DEBRIS", and by whom? More importantly, for what purpose was the label altered, other than to draw attention to a piece of "debris" inserted into the bag by persons unknown? That discrepancy was never challenged either during the trial nor at the subsequent appeal.

In yet another puzzling exchange with Richard Keen, Hayes admitted that even though his initial conclusion was that the green fragment - PT35/B - was a fragment from a bomb timer, he failed to undertake a routine chemical trace analysis to determine whether it had been in contact with an explosion. This was quite contrary to standard forensic process, and can only be described as negligence. It contrasted with the chemical trace analyses he undertook of each of the twenty four pieces of luggage surrounding the immediate explosion of which the fragment was a component. In spite of prolonged cross-examination, Hayes could provide no logical explanation for it. Or, perhaps, did Hayes know what he would find, namely that the fragment possessed no trace of explosive? Only a controlled analysis by an independent forensic scientist might test the fragment's provenance. And that could not occur without a special form of appeal. Such would not prove possible until the year 2009, and I will return to this subject later in this book.

Meanwhile in Kamp Zeist the judges had only Hayes’ word. They knew of his record as a conspirator in with-holding evidence in a major IRA trial, and that of his immediate colleagues in a second IRA trial. They watched his contrasting explanations regarding the pagination of his notebook and the sudden return of his memory when gently steered under re-examination by the prosecution. They witnessed his word games regarding McKee's suitcase - illegal evidence tampering by the intelligence services of either the United Kingdom or America. They listened to him twice claim that he was the first to find debris - the fragment of the bomb - in the evidence bag, and that therefore neither Gilchrist nor anyone else could have seen it before he did. Yet instead of basing their judgement on what Hayes actually said, they would substitute their own explanations and believe the man implicitly.

Hundreds of fragments from the luggage container and its contents were discovered. From the remains of the Toshiba cassette recorder that contained the bomb; from twenty four items of luggage in the immediate vicinity of the explosion; from clothing and personal effects; even from a black umbrella. For me it was not unreasonable to expect many fragments from the bomb and timer, the wires, the circuits, the frame, the timer itself, to be embedded in surrounding clothing and luggage, the luggage container, the aircraft spars and structure. Yet apart from a charred shirt collar, none contained a single fragment of the bomb. The fragment too, when displayed before the court, and apart from fraying around the edges (said to have been done by laboratory processing), was almost pristine. Its bright green anti-solder covering was still bright green. Its printed circuits remained just as pristine. Both in spite of its position at the centre of a three thousand degree high explosive fireball.

In time I would watch witness Allan Feraday, who prepared the final forensic report for the trial, confirm under oath that only one fragment - the Hayes four millimetre square piece of "debris" - was ever found. That of itself seemed an unusual occurrence. I found myself asking how much other material might have been removed, or re-inserted, or even planted. One of Cannistraro's colleagues in the White House had discussed the use of manufactured evidence to destabilise a middle eastern government. If such was good for Yemen, then why not for Libya? Yet in spite of my suspicions - also shared by many of those following the progress of the trial - the miraculous fragment would pass without challenge.

CIA had duplicate timers.

"There has been some speculation about timers from that same series being provided to STASI [The East German Secret Police, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989], and it's true that they were. But they were on brown circuit boards. The circuit board that was used in the explosion at Lockerbie was a green production model of the timer, and that came from Libyan intelligence." So spoke Vincent Cannistraro into the camera in 1993. His words were of interest, not for what he said, but for what he did not say. During that time, unknown to the public and the media, within the storeroom of the CIA laboratories in Langley Virginia lay at least one exact duplicate of an MST-13 timer. It was set on a green lacquered baseboard identical to the type from which the Hayes fragment was said to have originated.

8th June 2000.

A column of vans with blacked-out windows glided to a halt at the entrance to the court building. Shielded from public and journalist gaze several men were ushered into the rear entrance.

One of the men was witness Richard Louis Sherrow, a retired US Army veteran of twenty years' service, and an expert in firearms and explosives, who'd worked for the U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Service (ATF). Prosecution advocate Turnbull led Sherrow through his evidence-in-chief. In 1986 Sherrow had been instructed by the ATF to travel to Lome, Togo, with an Edward Owen of the ATF, and James Casey of the State Department. During the visit, Sherrow observed a number of items, including explosives and several timers. One timer was of special interest to him.

"TURNBULL: Had you ever seen electronic timers similar to the ones you saw in Lome?
SHERROW: Not exactly similar, no, sir. Subsequently, I was allowed to take one timer and a sample of, I believe, three different types of explosives. They were placed in the United States diplomatic pouch and returned. I examined [the timer] at the headquarters of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, performed bench tests, functioning tests.
TURNBULL: Did you photograph it at the headquarters?
SHERROW: Yes, I did.
TURNBULL: And having performed these tests and photographed it, what did you then do with it?
SHERROW: I was requested to take it to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and give a briefing on what I found.
TURNBULL: And did you take the timer back with you?
SHERROW: No, I didn't. That was released to their custody."

US opens trade office in Libya

It is being reported by various news media, relying on AFP which itself relies on the Libyan news agency JANA, that the United States yesterday (Sunday) opened a trade office in Tripoli. The most detailed report that I can find is on the RTTNews website. It can be read here.

Quilt tribute to disaster victims

This is the headline over a story on the BBC News website. The full story, with a picture of the quilt, can be seen here. The first four sentences read:

'A quilt marking the 20th anniversary of the Lockerbie disaster has been unveiled in the town. It took five women almost two years to complete the work depicting a tree shedding its leaves in the countryside. The falling leaves symbolise the 259 people who died on Pan Am Flight 103 while pebbles represent 11 Lockerbie residents who lost their lives. The tree roots convey the people of Lockerbie who strove to rebuild their lives after the 1988 atrocity.'

More on PII from Private Eye

The current issue of the magazine Private Eye contains the following article:

LOCKERBIE APPEAL: Howells of outrage

Foreign Office minister Kim Howells has revealed that the Scottish judges hearing the Lockerbie bombing appeal have agreed to the [UK] government’s request to keep under wraps evidence that is crucial to the defence of [Abdelbaset] Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan serving life for the murder of [270] people killed when Pan Am flight 103 was blown from the skies.

The judges apparently gave their ruling at the end of the secret hearing in August to discuss the evidence from a “foreign power” (…) which is understood to relate to the bomb’s timing device. But as Megrahi’s defence team and the public were excluded from the court, no one knew about it until Howells responded to a request for an update from former MP Tam Dalyell.

Instead of allowing Megrahi’s lawyers access to this piece of evidence, which forms one of the six grounds of appeal identified by the Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) the judges are instead to appoint a “special counsel”, supposedly to represent Megrahi’s interests. According to Howells, this special counsel “will be provided with a confidential summary of the submissions made by the Advocate General at the last (August) hearing”.

He or she will need much more than that. The evidence which convicted Megrahi was highly complex, multinational and full of contradictions and anomalies – particularly the evidence surrounding the damning fragment of timing device said to link the bomb to the Libyans and Megrahi. Lawyers preparing his appeal need all the evidence to ensure they have the full picture; but as it stands they do not even know which “foreign power” this piece of evidence comes from and thus how significant it is.

Will a “special counsel” with no detailed knowledge of the case or of the modus operandi of other terrorist organizations operating at the time really be able to assess and advise Megrahi’s lawyers about the importance of this evidence after being given a “summary”?

One of the most worrying features of the Megrahi case identified by the Scottish CCRC is that this evidence – and other material – pointing to the Libyan’s innocence was concealed from his trial in the first place.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora perished in the atrocity, said the foreign office’s reliance on public interest immunity to keep secret documents that police, prosecutors and the SCCRC have had in their possession for years, showed that politics was again being allowed to override justice.

In January 2005 journalist [Ian] Ferguson used freedom of information laws to unearth a staggering agreement between the crown and the US authorities not to introduce such material – even at the price of a fair trial, it would seem.

The UK government of course dismisses claims of interference in Megrahi’s appeal. “The decision by the foreign secretary to assert public interest immunity (PII) in relation to certain material is entirely appropriate and in accordance with the rule of law. It is the foreign secretary’s assessment that the release of this material would do real and lasting damage to the UK’s relations with other states and the UK’s national security,” says Howells.

[Note by RB: My understanding is that the “special counsel” will make submissions to the court (in closed session) about whether, and in what form, the mystery documents should be released for use in the appeal. It is perfectly possible that the court will override the Foreign Secretary’s PII certificate and order the documents to be disclosed to Megrahi’s legal team, either as they stand or in a redacted form satisfactory to that team. If the court does not order the release of the documents, the question then arises of whether the appeal can be (and be seen to be) fair within the meaning of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That is an issue that could go from the Scottish courts to the Privy Council in London and, ultimately, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.]

The Firm's coverage of Skye event

The October issue of the Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm has a two-page spread, with photographs, on the meeting organized by the Lockerbie Justice Group at Greshornish House, Skye, on 15 and 16 September 2008. The text reads as follows:

No limits on Skye as legal academics aim for new way ahead

Over two days at a retreat in the north of Skye, a unique and unprecedented international accord was drafted in an effort to provide Scots law with a way out of the Lockerbie judicial quagmire, and provide a better model for future cases. Steven Raeburn was there to hear the outcomes.

A secluded idyll at practically the northwesternmost fringe of the European continent is an incongruous site for an international conference. The ripples that could emanate from a quiet country hotel sited at the end of a rutted road, promulgated by two legal academics at the invitation of Scotland’s most dogged and effective patriot, far from the entrenched attitudes, vested interest and closed minds of the madding crowd of Holyrood and central belt establishment, could ripple out and write a profoundly significant chapter in the history of Scottish justice.

The Greshornish House Accord proposes that if Scotland was charged with managing such an international case in the future, it could be held at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. And that non Scottish judges could participate in a Scottish trial, citing international precedent. It also proposes practical amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland ) Act 1995, the ‘bible’ of criminal law, and to the Scotland Act to amend the ‘inappropriate’ situation where the Chief Legal Adviser to the Government is also head of criminal prosecutions.

“I hope that we can set a hare running from this point, and that this message will eventually get to the powers-that-be, and they will take some cognisance of it,” said Robbie the Pict, who had gathered Professor Robert Black and Dr Hans Kochler, UN appointed observer to the Lockerbie proceedings, to discuss four key questions “in the hope of guidance in the pursuit of proper justice for all in relation to the destruction of PanAm Flight 103 over Lockerbie in December 1988”. The resultant accord is a four part template providing both a philosophical and a practical way out of the quagmire surrounding the ongoing Lockerbie proceedings which have stained Scots law. Proceedings which presently appear to be hostage to the strategic interests of UK and US foreign policy and Libyan governmental expedience.

The scale and depth of the mess has been extraordinary. The ease with which Scots law was hijacked is troubling. The lack of fuss or even interest from within the legal and political establishment, and the evident assent of Scots law to serve the geopolitical interest gives the impression of collusion, complicity and denial. Court doors have literally been closed as proceedings carry on in secret, to the exclusion even of the defence and the accused. The era of hidden justice is upon us. The proponents of the Greshornish House accord don’t think this is good enough.

“As an observer, I just would like to know exactly what the causes of this incident in the air over Lockerbie really are. I just hope that there will be a new appeal. If evidence is withheld from the defence, there can be no appeal,” Hans Kochler said, announcing the joint conclusions on Skye. “To me it is extremely frustrating that in regard to such an incident, just one person has been presented as the culprit, with no further questions asked and no investigations ever having been made. This is not a credible explanation.

“Why doesn’t Scotland, independent in regard to the administration of criminal justice, undertake the appropriate measures to investigate this matter fully? This is a case that is not closed. This is something that is ongoing, and I will not run away until I am presented with a clear, unambiguous and comprehensive decision of a court.”

“If this is an independent system, theoretically, the prosecutorial authorities of Scotland could still initiate investigations into this incident and into what caused it. I do not think everything is just connected to the question of the personal criminal responsibility of one lone individual.”

The ongoing court proceedings in the case, returned to the High Court on the basis that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, are presently diverted with procedural issues relating to the disclosure or otherwise of evidential letters, which have been given considerable weight by the court and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, although sources who are aware of the contents of the documents have told the Firm that their contents are well known and irrelevant. The sleight of hand will result, say both Black and Kochler, in unavoidable prejudice to Megrahi’s case, and his inevitable repatriation.

“This panel basically agrees that if they uphold the PII certificate, no appeal is possible, and Mr Megrahi will be sent home. He would have to be sent home. We cannot offer him a fair hearing of his appeal,” said Robbie the Pict, who brokered the accord and convened the panel. “If the FCO are urging that this is a highly sensitive document, this cannot be taken lightly. So it would prevail over the interests of Scottish justice. If that happens, there is an implicit duty upon the judges to say there is not an equality of arms, therefore they cannot offer Mr Megrahi a fair appeal hearing.”

Professor Robert Black, instrumental in orchestrating the original trial proceedings in Zeist, says there is currently no political will to reinvestigate the circumstances of the event, even if Megrahi is repatriated and proceedings close without a solid conviction as predicted. “I am not convinced that there is such political will. One of the things we have been trying to do is insert some backbone into those politicians who have the power to make it happen,” he said.

Kochler in turn drew comparison with the Shirley McKie embarrassment, which resulted in a lengthy and productive inquiry process that shed some welcome light on the dustier corners of the Scottish judicial and political power structure. Such an outcome is warranted in the Lockerbie scenario he says. “The present case definitely has as much weight as the McKie case for the rule of law, and for democratic structures. Why would the government of Scotland not agree to an independent inquiry? Scotland would also do a great service to the international rule of law. This was an incident of international nature. To know the truth about it is extremely important.”

The nexus between Scots law and UK foreign policy is directly affected by the friction arising from the handling of this case. Kochler believes that this presents an opportunity for Scots law to assert its credibility and ensure the maintenance of its international reputation. “It is a test case to see how independent the Scottish judiciary acts and how determined the authorities of this country are to assert the supremacy of the law over political interests,” he says.

“Scottish justice may still come out very well, if there is a new appeal, which is fair, and conducted with all the material and all the evidence made available to both sides, then there is still a chance. If not, this will just be one of the many cases where politics finally prevailed over law. This is the result of a political and international constellation that Scotland cannot control. But still, the judiciary should try to act independently and not give in to the political pressures.”

Libya taps foreign, own companies to fill fund

This is the headline over a story on the Reuters Africa website. The first three paragraphs read:

'Tripoli is tapping U.S., Libyan and other companies to put money into a humanitarian fund for U.S. victims of terrorism, a senior Bush administration official and another source said on Friday.

'The fund, agreed on in August by the United States and Libya to settle terrorism cases on both sides, still has no any money in it but a senior U.S. official said he was confident Tripoli would fulfill its obligations.

'"They (the Libyans) are out there raising their funds," said the senior official, who spoke on condition he not be named because the issue is sensitive.'

The full article can be read here.

Rewards for Justice

The aangirfan blog has a post on the denial in The Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie television programme that witnesses were offered rewards for their information and/or testimony. As has been demonstrated elsewhere too, this is false. The relevant portion of the post is paragraphs 3, 4 and 5.