The Zeist verdict – Prepare to be astonished

[What follows is an article with this title by Dr Jim Swire prepared for The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper with a large circulation, particularly in the North-east of Scotland. I am informed that the article was published in the edition of 27 January 2009, but I have been unable to verify this.]

Present throughout the trial and first appeal at Zeist, as a lay person, I went there fully expecting to hear the guilt of the two Libyans confirmed to the criminal law standard of the removal of any ‘reasonable doubt’.

The prosecution tale was of how clothing found round the crash site led the police to a small shop in Malta, whence a random assortment of children’s and other clothing, had been bought.

Identification of the buyer and the date of sale were immediately unsatisfactory. Gauci, the shopkeeper was on record as saying that pictures of Megrahi shown to him by the police were like the buyer, but he would have to have been taller and younger. Meanwhile his brother had shown him a picture of a man called [Abu] Talb on the front page of the Sunday Times, which he had immediately recognized as the buyer. He had also been aware that up to $4,000,000 reward was on offer for a conviction.

I thought Gauci did his best, under pressure, but reasonable doubt about the buyer’s identity was certainly left. Ex Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser was more critical later, calling Gauci ‘One apple short of a picnic’.

The prosecution led no evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have penetrated Malta’s airport security, which appeared much better than that at the Heathrow of those days.

If the bomb had started from Malta, then the bomber would have had to have used a programmable long running timer but even then, how extraordinary that a route involving two changes of aircraft, and timing only allowing 38 minutes of flight time from Heathrow should be used. Why not load it at Heathrow and explode it over mid-Atlantic, a couple of hours later?

The court heard that ‘proof’ of the use of such a timer was alleged to have come solely from finding a fragment of its circuit board. Unfortunately, someone unidentified had gone to considerable trouble to alter the label on its police evidence bag, as though to draw attention to its presence among pieces of cloth within, and the forensic team entered it retrospectively in their hand written report, having to renumber subsequent pages and in addition even failed to test to see if it bore explosive residues. Was it really genuine, beyond reasonable doubt?

The court also heard that the CIA had come into possession of two such timers before Lockerbie, and confirmed that they were of a type that could indeed have been set to run long enough to go off over mid Atlantic.

But there were two main reasons for me why the prosecution case seemed unlikely to be correct.

First, to believe it required belief in the most extraordinary set of ‘coincidences’.

Second, a far more likely and much simpler explanation was suggested by the actual evidence heard in court. It converts the ‘coincidences’ into supportive evidence.

The court heard how Iran had had an airbus shot down by a US ship 6 months before Lockerbie and had sworn revenge. That was an even stronger motive than Libya’s. Also Iran was closely associated with a Syrian based terror group called the PFLP-GC. That group, the court was told, had perfected bombs for use against aircraft. They contained an air pressure switch and a fixed timer. The pressure switch prevented anything happening at ground level, but if put in an aircraft, then 7 minutes after take-off it would switch on the timer. The PFLP-GC timers all ran for about 30 minutes before exploding the Semtex. Thus any aircraft containing such a bomb would be blown up around 7 + 30 minutes after take-off. The user could not alter the flight time: it had to be around 37 minutes. This too was explained to the court

These bombs could be smuggled into an airport at any time – hours days or weeks before they would be used, yet if put aboard they would still explode around 38 minutes after take-off.

The Lockerbie flight lasted 38 minutes from its Heathrow take off. A staggering coincidence?

At the first appeal, the appeal court heard that there had been a break-in to Heathrow airside the night before Lockerbie, giving access to Iran Air’s facilities. It accepted that a break-in was a very unusual event.

Another amazing coincidence?

Was a PFLP-GC bomb brought into the airport for use the following night by the Iran Air personnel? Raises reasonable doubts, doesn’t it?

On the evening of the Lockerbie disaster, the court heard, the Heathrow baggage handler loaded a layer of bags into the container for the Lockerbie flight, went for a tea break, and on coming back noticed that someone had put two more bags on top of those he had loaded. He did not remove them.

A third extraordinary coincidence?

The Court also heard that that placed the two unauthorized, cases close to the position in the very container where the explosion was found to have originated.

Yet another coincidence?

At the time the cases were seen by the Heathrow baggage handler the feeder flight from Frankfurt, on which the prosecution case depended, had not even landed.

These are but a few of the reasons why I personally do not believe the verdict reached at Zeist.

Who did buy the clothes from Gauci then? Remember the name Talb, whose picture was shown to Gauci in the Sunday Times? He was later arrested in Sweden for causing an explosion in a terrorist attack unrelated to Lockerbie. In his flat in Sweden, the police found some more of the clothing from Gauci’s shop, and a calendar on which the 21st December 1988 was ringed.

Again, an amazing coincidence?

Why are we still waiting to see these questions re-addressed?

If we add up just these ‘coincidences’ then, for me, not even the civil standard of the ‘balance of probabilities’ is met

Did the SCCRC really need three years to decide this verdict might be unsafe?

The first appeal was completed on Valentine’s day 2002.