Letters to the editor

A letter from Geoff Simons, author of Libya and the West in The Guardian:

You give no details of the weakness of the decision against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie outrage (Transatlantic split over plans to free Libyan jailed for Lockerbie bombing, 14 August). The US and Britain violated international law by ignoring the Montreal Convention of 1971, the principal legal instrument in the case, which stipulated that the two suspects be tried in Libya.

That the subsequent, illegal court proceedings did not establish Megrahi's guilt beyond reasonable doubt is well shown by Lord Sutherland's own judicial summation: "On the matter of identification [by key witness Tony Gauci] … there are undoubtedly problems … In relation to certain aspects of the case, there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications … In selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified."

Before the trial, Tony Gauci was feted by the police, taken to Aviemore, taken fishing for salmon, and put up at the Hilton hotel in Glasgow – none of which was revealed to the judges in the Zeist court. Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University said he knew of no other Scottish murder trial witness being taken on fishing trips by police. Nor were the judges told that on the day of the bombing there had been an unexplained break-in in the Heathrow baggage area. The court verdict was a shameful political verdict under US pressure.

A letter from Iain A D Mann in The Herald:

Roger Terrett is almost completely right (Letters, August 18). First, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will be returned to Libya within days; secondly, there will be no appeal hearing and no public inquiry; thirdly, the UK and US governments and security services are determined to prevent the truth coming out. But Mr Terrett is wrong to accuse Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of dithering.

Late last Thursday evening, the BBC confidently reported that Megrahi was to be released on compassionate grounds within a few days. Where did this leak come from? Surely not from the Scottish Government, as this would gain nothing and only pile even more pressure on Mr MacAskill. The only other likely sources are the UK government or one of the Scottish opposition parties.

The early leak gave these parties all weekend to build up a frenzy of feigned fury about being denied information and to demand a statement from the Justice Secretary and even the recall of the Scottish Parliament.

But Mr MacAskill did not receive the final reports from the prison governor and expert medical opinion until the weekend, and needed time to consider these. The leaked news also gave time for Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, and a group of senators to attempt to influence a Scottish judicial matter that was none of their business.

Megrahi, who has consistently maintained his innocence, decided to withdraw his second appeal against conviction and has had his application to do so accepted by the High Court in Edinburgh - despite the fact a release on compassionate grounds was not conditional on this. Why did he change his mind abruptly, just when it seemed he could have his transfer to Libya and the appeal process continued? Was he leaned upon or given false advice? Again, we do not know.

The result is that the six serious grounds for concern identified by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission regarding some of the evidence given, and evidence possibly deliberately withheld, at his original trial will never be aired or examined forensically in court. Who gains from this? The answer is obvious: the UK and US governments and their intelligence services, who have clearly been up to their eyes in this affair ever since the original accusations against Syria and Iran and the known terrorist el Talb were mysteriously abandoned and the focus was switched to Libya.

It is deeply worrying that our own and other democratically elected governments appear ready to manipulate, distort and conceal information, and to interfere with the due processes of law to protect underhand activities.