[This is the heading over a letter in today's edition of The Scotsman from Benedict Birnberg. It reads in part:]
That many families of the victims of the Lockerbie outrage are distraught at a decision [the compassionate release of Megrahi] that denies them even the consolation of a sacrificial lamb is understandable. But the hysteria, as much in the UK as in the US, has masked the decision of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in June 2007, following its three-year investigation, to refer the conviction to the High Court. It bears emphasising that its statement of referral extended to more than 800 pages with 13 volumes of appendices and that in its press release it described the investigation as "the longest, most expensive and singularly most complex" in its history. And it concluded " … based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice".
Yet, with scant exceptions, comment in the UK media generally, although much less so in Scotland, has ignored the reference or anything that casts doubt on Megrahi's guilt and has focused rather on such matters as his reception back home and the ostensible realpolitik behind his release and repatriation. The assumption has been that, because Megrahi withdrew his appeal before his release while maintaining his innocence, the court cannot now consider the case.
I do not know whether the appeal would succeed. All I know is that the official body charged with investigating his case formed the view, after extensive consideration, that an innocent man may have been convicted.
As a solicitor whose firm has been in the vanguard in handling UK miscarriage of justice cases over the past 40 years, I believe justice cannot be done or be seen to be done unless there is a judicial trial.
To this end I have written to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill to question the circumstances in which Megrahi withdrew his appeal and I have said that, if indeed the court is functus officio (has discharged its duties], the Scottish Government ought, in the interests of the fair administration of justice in Scotland, to establish an independent public judicial inquiry to ensure that the case painstakingly prepared by the commission does not go by default but receives full, fair and dispassionate consideration.
I certainly didn't find Ms Peirce's article "an utterly devastating critique" as Professor Black claims. However if I may briefly comment on Mr Marquise's lengthy diatribe -
ReplyDelete(1)I don't think it would have made much difference if the Scottish Police were left to conduct their own devices. It was John Orr who "eliminated" Heathrow a decision Marquise went along with.
When I was a Police Officer I was in charge of an investigation far more complex than "Lockerbie" involving multiple frauds. This involved numerous juridictions, even one that Britain was at war with. We relied on Interpol and letters rogatorie. In my experience so-called "joint" investigations are a recipe for manipulation and deceit as "Lockerbie" clearly was.
(2)Gauci never said the purchaser had a "Libyan accent". What he said was he didn't speak French - therefore he must be Libyan (go figure). Mr Marquise has also described the identification of Megrahi as the purchaser as "tenuous" but relied on other evidence i.e. he was staying in the area at the time. This is, in my view, precisely how he was fitted-up.
(3)I think Mr Marquise was led by the nose by the CIA. the fact that Cannistraro (by no means the main man) only fronted-up for one meeting is really irrelevant.
I do have obne question for Mr Marquise - did he draft Robert Mueller's letter - the phrase "makes a mockery" seems to be his!