[The following letter from Elizabeth Cutting, Public Information Officer for the Scottish Judiciary, is published in today's edition of The New York Times. The issue was referred to in a post on this blog on 14 September.]
Re “Still Chafing After 40 Years, Qaddafi Baffles the West With His Behavior” (news analysis, Aug. 26):
Dirk J. Vandewalle, associate professor of government at Dartmouth College, is quoted as stating that a judge from the Scottish panel that in January 2001 convicted Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing told him during a conversation that “there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction.”
I’m authorized to say that to the best of their knowledge the three deciding judges on the panel — Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean — have never met Mr. Vandewalle.
Moreover, they assert that none of them has ever said what Mr. Vandewalle reports one of them to have said. They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict.
I don´t know whether Mr. Vandewelle ever spoke to the three judges from the Camp Zeist panel and I don´t know whether any of them admitted that "there was enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction".
ReplyDeleteBut having attended the Zeist proceedings as an observer I know that there was such a pressure from outside, especially from the USA. And it was to the extreme.
Furthermore: This pressure is the only excuse for the judges to have come to such an incredible verdict.
According to the indictment the PA 103 terrorist act was a joint operation by Mr. Megrahi and Mr. Fhimah. The knowledge and activities of Mr. Phimah were essential - according to the indictment - for the successfull planting of the bomb in Malta. So by acquitting Mr. Fhimah the judges destroyed the basis for the any verdict against Mr. Megrahi in this case. In order to convict Mr. Megrahi - in spite of the acquittal of Mr. Fhimah - they had to invent another scenario outside the indictment.
There is no logic in that - the explanation can only be that the judges tacitly decided to somehow satisfy both sides, the US demands as well as the Libyan hopes.
Adam claims the Judges were under extreme pressure from the US but does not say how this pressure was exerted. Further he claims that "this pressure is the only excuse for the judges to have come to such an incredible verdict."
ReplyDeleteWhile I have no evidence to support this claim, save for some remarks by the former Lord Advocate to the House of Lords I suspect the Scottish Judiciary, as deeply conservative people, collectively regarded Camp Zeist as an abomination and were horrified that a defendant had effectively negotiated the form of tribunal before which he would agree to appear.
I suspect they were determined that such an appalling precedent should not repeated and were determined to convict if they possibly could. I do not believe any political pressure at all was or could be exerted. (My blog by the way is titled "The Masonic Verses".)
"They were never under any pressure to return any particular verdict."
ReplyDeleteThey might want to take a introductory course in general psychology.
Maybe they mean that nobody ever came and said to them: "You must reach a guilty verdict, or else...". This I'd believe any time. But that is not how pressure works.
Well how does it work?
ReplyDeleteHow it works? Look at the hysteria surrounding the release of Mr. Megrahi and his "hero´s welcome" in Libya. And then look how the Scottish, the British and even the Libyan government react to that hysteria. That is how political pressure works.
ReplyDeletebaz wrote:
ReplyDelete"Well how does it work?"
"- What is jazz, Mr. Armstrong?"
"- If you gotta ask you'll never know..."
Verdict Not Guilty
"Your government wouldn't like it. Neither would USAs government. Nor your police force, FBI, CIA, RARDE who worked so hard for years. Nor those of the relatives who strongly believe in Megrahi's guilt. Same for the public, who already knows that they are guilty. It would definitely not be good for your career. Do you want to help this mad dog Gadaffi to get away with it? What do you think your children would go through, their father freeing two terrorists and mass murderers? Who do you think you are?"
Verdict Guilty:
"Well done! Justice has prevailed. Now we can get compensation for the relatives. Thank you for demonstrating that our trusted investigative forces do a good piece of work. A few outsiders will maybe complain - there's always some, right? - but you will have the support and praise of everyone that really counts."
That is how pressure works.
I am sure, even Mr. Marquise would agree that there is no logic in a split vote in this case. Though he, of course, advocates the conviction of both Megrahi and Fhimah.
ReplyDeleteTo porkylinda: it happens every day and all over the world that the representatives of a defendant negotiate the conditions for the trial - and even its outcome. We can call it a bad habit (that was and is cultivated above all in the USA). But in this case the negotiations only served to secure a fair trial. I think the judges were simply biassed, as most of their countrymen, when it came to l
ReplyDeleteLibya, and they were not able to get rid of those prejudices.
Porkylinda and others:
ReplyDeletePlease note that Adam's initial statement was as follows:
"But having attended the Zeist proceedings as an observer I know that there was such a pressure from outside, especially from the USA."
There is no question that Mr. Adam is linking his "knowledge" to his presence at the court, is there? Then in response to questions to elaborate on the claim, he among others, has to resort to proverbs and generalities. Mr. Adam in particular, instead of elaborating on the connection between his "knowledge" and his presence in the court, he directs the questioners to news reports! Mr. Adam: Did you base your claimed knowledge on your observations of court proceedings, as you attempted to lead the readers initially, or did you base it on news report from a couple of decades later? With that kind of "logic", perhaps there is no stronger evidence of court manipulation than accepting Mr. Adam as an independent observer.
As for bad court habits started by the US, I think Mr. Adam is referring to plea bargaining agreements, which is again irrelevant to the discussion because the Lockerbie accused never entered into a plea agreement. And why do Europeans feel obligated to copy bad American habits, anyway?
Suliman wrote:
ReplyDelete"Mr. Adam in particular, instead of elaborating on the connection between his 'knowledge' and his presence in the court, he directs the questioners to news reports!"
Of course, if Adam had made (or would make) his own written material, that would indeed have been very nice.
But if not, I don't see a problem with linking. If a news report covers well what Adam believes to have seen, isn't linking acceptable?
Please re-read Mr. Adam's introductory clause, which I quoted, and you should see what his judgement is predicated upon.
ReplyDeleteThere is an old Libyan saying that "If it could pull a plow, they wouldn't sell it." If Mr. Adam had any experience worth telling, he would not have resorted to news report from two decades after the fact.
Dear Suliman,
ReplyDeleteof course nobody could "observe" any interference from outside into the court room in the building at Camp Zeist.
There was a bulletproof glass Wall in the room and you needed a headphone to listen to what was said into the microphones. Behind the glass wall and out of reach of the microphones there were, though, American advisers.
During the proceedings the main job of the judges was to call for a tea break. I have always admired them for not falling asleep (or they managed to keep it secret).
Outside the courtroom (but inside the heavily guarded camp site) you could experience groups of Americans calling for the death penalty to the two accused and to Mr. Gaddafi, for no mercy and so on. As it is American habit as long as the perpetrators are not Americans.
But, Mr. Suliman, the real pressure came from the so called public opinion, made by the international mainstream media and cultivated and supported by the State Department.
Do you really believe the judges were blind and deaf?
Thank you, Mr. Adam, for clarifying that your view is--after all--not based on your "having attended the Zeist proceedings as an observer."
ReplyDeleteAnd what you said you knew of the pressure turns out to be just your reading of the influence of one side of media accounts on the presiding judges--any presiding judges. In fact, all that was required for the outcome were any judges who could see and hear the media reports, right? That says the trial was doomed no matter who sat on the bench. You did not observe any basis for your conclusion, and you actually did not need to observe anything in court to reach your conclusion. I hope your observer role did not require you to set aside your prejudice.
Mr. Suliman is quite right that the enormous pressure to convict the accused would have been a problem for every judge at Camp Zeist. And, as we now know, the judges did not even get all the information they needed to consider the case. Under these circumstances I expect the three judges to speak out.
ReplyDeleteSorry, you forgot to tell us your opinion on the "split vote".
The split vote can be taken as evidence against your prejudicial argument that all judges would have been expected to fall victim to the media coverage. It can also be taken as a confirmation of the independence of the individual judges, as well as a confirmation of the sound logic and foresight of appointing an odd number of judges. Again, split opinion, split ruling, split whatever are all outcomes accorded by the law.
ReplyDelete"The split vote can be taken as evidence against your prejudicial argument that all judges would have been expected to fall victim to the media coverage."
ReplyDeleteThat is often exactly why dissent and split votes are built into decisions - it gives such a nice legitimate look.
If a jury or a team of judges is under suspicion of being selected all in favor of one side, don't let dissent fool you.
Sorry to have confused the debate a bit by using the term "split vote". The two decisions at Camp Zeist were both unanimous. But at the same time they were extremely contradictory: The indictment tried to show that that Mr. Megrahi was committing the crime TOGETHER with Mr. Fhimah. The latter being the person who had knowledge of the localities at the airport in Malta - which Mr. Megrahi had not. So when you acquit Mr. Fhimah the accusations against Mr. Megrahi fall apart - according to the indictment. You could then say that Mr. Megrahi still did it with the help of other persons - but that is a new scenario and it is fully speculative.
ReplyDeleteThat is unfortunately what the judges did and they did it because they relied upon hat was presented to them by the Crown about Mr. Gauci.
Now we know that they were fooled by the prosecution. Or they knew that the Crown fooled the defence and the public. You can choose btween those two possibilities.
"Now we know that they were fooled by the prosecution. Or they knew that the Crown fooled the defence and the public. You can choose btween those two possibilities."
ReplyDeleteThey didn't need much fooling:
boiled down, all we have to link Megrahi directly to a suitcase with a bomb, is the claim that he bought the clothes.
But...
* The picking of the date, the 7th, stands out as something really bad. The information regarding the date is clearly in the defense's favor, but they still managed to select this date.
* Gauci. Nice home-made bla-bla about how an uncertain and self-contradictory witness are sometimes more reliable than those expressing certainty. This argument does not stand up to experience. Most reliable witnesses are the most certain ones, making the fastest identifications. But other witnesses being very certain in Megrahi's disfavor (e.g. Mr Bedford) were called "impressive".
* Getting a suitcase onboard an airplane without going yourself is in praxis impossible, and was also in 1988. The prosecution can't just drop this point, unless the other evidence is certain. Why trust Frankfurts evidence that an extra one was there, more than Malta's that it was not: 55 suitcases. 39 passengers, all accounted for.
Finally, the "science" in the case was highly speculative, and could only be.
- - -
Somewhere inside themselves they may have thought: "This is a special case, and we could not expect evidence to be better because of obvious difficulties in providing it."
That would be correct. But if that's what they thought, they forgot, that this should never be of disadvantage to the accused.