This is the heading over the most recent post on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. It sets out a well-argued case for concluding that there was jiggery-pokery involved in inducing Abdelbaset Megrahi to drop his appeal even though that was not a requirement for compassionate release.
I may be being naive, but I continue to believe that the decision to abandon the appeal was taken simply because it kept open the possibility of repatriation under the UK-Libya Prisoner Transfer Agreement. Declining to abandon would have meant Megrahi putting all his eggs in the single basket labelled "compassionate release" at a time when he had no way of knowing which of the two alternatives Kenny MacAskill was likely to favour (if he was minded to grant repatriation at all).
Since the diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer was delivered, and in the light of the Scottish Prison Medical Service's conclusion that no life-extending treatment was possible (a conclusion that, incidentally, seems to have been falsified by events after Megrahi's return to Libya) Megrahi's overriding concern was to return to his homeland to die in the bosom of his family. Had he refused to terminate his appeal, he would have been depriving himself of one of the only two mechanisms available for securing that return. It ultimately transpired that the Justice Secretary opted for the mechanism that did not require abandonment. But Megrahi had no way of knowing that that was the way that Mr MacAskill would jump (and the Minister had stated that there would be no nods or winks before his decision was publicly announced) and so he decided to hedge his bets.
Lockerbie relative, Matt Berkley, believes that, having been dropped, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's second appeal can be revived.
ReplyDeleteIs it feasible, Prof. Black?
While I respect Prof. Black's opinion, I could certainly see as I followed the events day by day, that compassionate release was a racing certainty while prisoner transfer would be over Kenny MacAskill's dead body. Megrahi was reading the same newspaper as I was and watching the same TV news as I was, by all accounts, and had been for eight years. He's not stupid. If I could work it out, so could he.
ReplyDeleteIt seems more like he's saying a third appeal could be allowed. It's an interesting avenue.
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge there may not have been a direct deal, but I'm just troubled that compassionate release could be denied at will and threatened to be replaced, so MacAskill could keep and jumble together both options to confuse Megrahi and give him "an appalling choice" or, worded differently, a bet to hedge.
I wonder where Mr. MacAskill has explained this strategy and his rationale publicly. I'd need to see what justification he could offer.
MISSION LOCKERBIE: only a computer "Babylon" translation, german/ english :
ReplyDeleteIs the dropping of the successful promising "Lockerbie appeal invalid and must be set back to the status from 19/20 August, 2009?
Professor Dr. Hans Koechler, UN Observer during "Lockerbie trial" held in Kamp van Zeist points out a servere error, which was not happening for the first time:
According to Scottish law, it is NOT necessary that a convicted shall with drawal his demand for reappeal in order to profit from a so called "compassionate release". Such with drawal would have been necessary only, if Mr Adelbaset Al Megrahi would have been returned to his home country on the basis of the agreement between Libya and Great Britain referring to the mutual transfer of prisoners.
It lacks of any reason, that Mr Megrahi has abandoned his right, that the reappeal-procedure shall continue also in the case of his sudden death. It is well possible, that Mr Megrahi was not informed/consulted correctly during his stay in prison. There is a vital danger, that this fatal error will deeply influence the jurisdiction in the case in question.
Professor Dr Koechler explained to me personaly, that it is a generaly accepted principle of right, that such decision is only valid, wehn this desicion has been made in full liberty. Professor Koechler has furthermore immediately after the desicion of with drawal was made public asked, that all circumstances, which have lead to this desicion must be 100% cleared-including the role, which was "played" by his (Megrahi's) defense-team!
MEBO states the following: The publication of Mr Megrahi's appeal-documents on his internet-webpage for the sake of clearing his name is a clear indice, that the "dropping" of his appeal was NOT based on his free will:
Why so? / Possible answers
1. Mr Megrahi was not protected to absolutely avoid a legally wrong decision by the present lawyer Tony Kelly;
2. Mr Megrahi was possibly set under drugs which resulted in the fact, that his medical ability was out of control;
3. Mr Megrahi was intentionable wrongfully informed about his legal possibilities ;
4. Mr Megrahi was blackmailed by facts, which have nothing to do with the PanAm 103 attack and were clearly aimed do drop the appeal;
5. It would have been the clear duty of the Lord Advocates at the appeal court in Edinburgh, to learn Mr Megrahi, that a dropping of the appeal-issue would not influence the 'compassionate release'!
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd.,Switzerland
Rolfe:
ReplyDelete"While I respect Prof. Black's opinion, I could certainly see as I followed the events day by day, that compassionate release was a racing certainty while prisoner transfer would be over Kenny MacAskill's dead body. Megrahi was reading the same newspaper as I was and watching the same TV news as I was, by all accounts, and had been for eight years. He's not stupid. If I could work it out, so could he."
To me it seems highly odd that a years-stalled, never plausible PTA scheme (as I see it) would get revived, and ratified, and ready for the appeal surrender, right as compassionate release was also an option. Indeed, more so than an explicit deal, it seems Megrahi was presented with a confusing lack of specificity.
Ebol:
That comment came through much clearer than usual. As for this line:
"It is well possible, that Mr Megrahi was not informed/consulted correctly during his stay in prison. There is a vital danger, that this fatal error will deeply influence the jurisdiction in the case in question."
That's how it seems, and since it came out conveniently killing the appeal, one must wonder if that was accidental or deliberate disinformation.
Kenny MacAskill? Why him? What does he gain? Etc... I really don't know, in the slightest. I still don't knoww aht when wrong with RARDE in '89 or with their Lordships at Camp Zeist either, but people seem to keep making just the right mistakes with this case.
I think, we all, who did not sit behind the bars for one day, should recognize that Mr. Megrahi was under heavy pressure.
ReplyDeleteHe had experienced that three senior Scottish judges committed a misjudgement of his case.
He had experienced that five senior Scottish judges ruled that the three judges in the first instance had no basis for their misjudgement but nevertheless were in their right to send Mr. Megrahi to prison.
Why should he now trust that the next bunch of Scottish judges would do better?
Here we are, once again, having to suffer yet another stultifying dialogue between the incorrigible occult site contributors Rolfe and Caustic Logic.
ReplyDeleteWhat are they on about?
CL, prisoner transfer was Tony Blair's little scheme, which was stymied when his party (Labour) lost power in the Scottish parliament in May 2007. The incoming SNP government, with Kenny MacAskill as Justice Secretary, would rather have its fingernails pulled than go along with any plan of Tony Blair's.
ReplyDeleteIt was pretty clear they were waiting until Megrahi's clinical condition justified compassionate release. Then the Labour government in Westminster released Ronnie Biggs under their compassionate release scheme - Ronnie Biggs is still alive too, by the way. That was the green light, and within a couple of weeks Megrahi had also been granted compassionate release.
You could see it happening, step by step. Prisoner transfer was never going to happen.
Apologies, all the interest is a little unexpected and parts of this are still over my head (the rest at about nose level).
ReplyDeleteThe Ronnie Biggs parallel is interesting. I gather these things are uncommon enough that the coincidence is of the eyebrow-raising kind?
FWIW the US had at the same time (early September) the appeal for compassionate release of Manson gang killer Susan Atkins. Denied, and she died in prison.
The whole PTA line seems silly. If compassion can be framed as unavoidable law, isn't a swap by default optional? The UK was going to up and do that, ever, really? Revive it again right at the end and you've got something, IMO, with no purpose but to vacuum the appeal out of the picture.
Professor Black: Do you consider it normal and proper for MacAskill to have held out both options and refuse to tell the prisoner? I understand that to be what you're saying, but what do you feel about it? Was he genuinely unsure until the last minute, or just keeping Megrahi in the dark? It doesn't seem right to me, but I'm no expert.
I know you're busy, but please help clarify that when you've got a minute. Thanks.
There is no legal reason that I can think of that required Mr MacAskill to announce his decision on prisoner transfer at the same time as his decision on compassionate release. The prisoner transfer application was made by the Libyan Government (not by Megrahi) some considerable time before Megrahi applied for compassionate release. It would therefore not have seemed odd for the decision on transfer to be announced before the decision on compassionate release.
ReplyDeleteBut, of course, if the decision had been to approve prisoner transfer that would effectively have pre-empted compassionate release (the Scottish authorities having no power to order the release of someone not in a Scottish prison). It is therefore understandable that the decisions should have been taken (or at least announced) simultaneously.
However, I cannot see that there could have been any legitimate objection to Kenny MacAskill giving advance notice that he was minded to refuse prisoner transfer. This would have indicated to Megrahi that abandonment of the appeal was not necessary. Why the decision was taken not to give any such advance notice, I do not know. A cynic (or perhaps just a realist) might say that keeping the pressure on Megrahi to abandon his appeal, by refusing him the knowledge that prisoner transfer had been excluded, was in the interests of the Scottish legal establishment which greatly feared what that appeal would disclose.
And then I get delayed responding to the response. Apologies.
ReplyDeleteRB said:
However, I cannot see that there could have been any legitimate objection to Kenny MacAskill giving advance notice that he was minded to refuse prisoner transfer. This would have indicated to Megrahi that abandonment of the appeal was not necessary.
So MacAskill wasn’t forced to take the unclear route. He chose to do so, for some reason (which we cannot know). It might help avoid unnecessary friction over snubbing Blair's plan, maybe? And the end result was Megrahi left with enough uncertainty he might just have felt he had to fulfill the terms of both escape routes.
Why the decision was taken not to give any such advance notice, I do not know. A cynic (or perhaps just a realist) might say that keeping the pressure on Megrahi to abandon his appeal, by refusing him the knowledge that prisoner transfer had been excluded, was in the interests of the Scottish legal establishment which greatly feared what that appeal would disclose.
I was starting to look at the “UK National interests” cited for the PTA and forgetting that the appeal would embarrass mostly Scottish police and Scottish judges. And here’s the Scottish justice secretary taking a course of action that leads to the avoidance of that.
That’s not really very complex. Color me cynical. Thanks for commenting on this issue, Professor Black. It's been an informative exchange.
CL, it's a litle more complex than you think.
ReplyDeleteKenny MacAskill is SNP. The SNP had absolutely nothing at all to do with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing, or the indictment of Megrahi, or the Camp Zeist trial. There is no possible way that political party could be blamed or held culpable for any deficiencies. (The original investigation took place before devolution with a Conservative government in Westminster, and the trial took place after devolution with a Labour government in Westminster and a Labour/LibDem coalition in Holyrood.)
General opinion within the SNP has tended to the theory that Megrahi was stitched up. I bought my first book about the case at an SNP conference, and it's published by an SNP-sympathising publisher. You'd almost think, really, that it would be in the SNP's party political interests to let that appeal go ahead. Show that it's the party of justice and openness and the righting of wrongs. Show up the three unionist parties as biassed and conniving.
But no. The minute Kenny MacAskill gets into power, and (as far as I know) gets to see some of the secret stuff that all the wrangling has been about, he reverts to type as an establishment figure, and appears to carry on the policy of his Labour and Conservative predecessors in trying to keep as much as possible about this affair out of the public domain. Even before the appeal was dropped, I think he was party to the attempts to prevent the secret document(s) being rleased into the public domain, that caused so much comment back in 2007-08.
At least, that's how I read it. One way or another, he seems to have colluded in pressurising Megrahi to drop the appeal as a condition for getting back to Libya, even though that wasn't in fact necessary.
I would dearly love to know his reasons for doing that.
MISSION LOCKERBIE: only a computer "Babylon" translation in german/english
ReplyDeleteThe dropping of the successful promising "Lockerbie appeal" was the central part for the freedom of Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi!
Behind the surprising release of the innocent Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, did not stand an "Oil Deal" nor a "Prisoner Transfer Agreement" with Libya, but the FEAR of Scotland's and Great Britain's, before the result and open secrets of the current Appeals (miscarriage of justice) and the following damages compensation claim from Libya up to 40 billion US$!
Some of the Scottish Officials are the true criminals in the "Lockerbie Affair": ex-forensic scientist Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE) UK, ex-forensic expert Allen Feraday (RARDE) UK and three known persons of the Scottish police are responsible for manipulating evidence in the Lockerbie Affair and are still protected by the Scottish Justice! (They are not involved in the PanAm 103 bombing, but responsible for the conspiracy against Libya).
The large chance for Mr. Megrahi is coming to be cleared up with a complete investigation in the Lockerbie-Conspiracy against Libya. The honour of Mr. Megrahi and the prestige of Libya must be finally repaired. Libya and its Official Mr. Megrahi have nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy!
The Scottish "Lockerbie-Trial" in Kamp van Zeist, was far from fair and proper!
The Conservative Leader, David Cameron calls on 1st of September 2009 for a Lockerbie inquiry!
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland (www.lockerbie.ch)
Ebol still doesn't get it. There are two separate jurisdictions and several political parties involved here.
ReplyDeleteThe oil deal was the ploy of the Labour Westminster government, and specifically Tony Blair. He offered Gadaffi the prisoner transfer deal in April 2007, just before the Scottish parilamentary elections. At that time the Labour party was also in power in Scotland, and the Scottish First Minister (Jack McConnell, I didn't vote for him) would have acceded to that course of action if his party leader had told him to.
On 3rd May 2007, the election was held, and the SNP won by one seat. They succeeded in forming a minority government which is still in power. The SNP administration would rather have its fingernails pulled than do Tony Blair's bidding. Tony suddenly found himself unable to deliver on the prisoner transfer deal.
The appeal proceeded, and the question of defence access to certain confidential documents arose. As far as I can make out, the SNP at least co-operated in the refusal to release these documents, if they weren't the main instigators. We don't even know what the documents refer to. The astonishing solution was that a special advocate was to see the documents on Megrahi's behalf, and after he had seen them he could never again communicate with defendant or defence team.
Now what was in these documents that persuaded the SNP administration to fall in line with previous Conservative and Labour administrations and exert itself to keep this information secret? The unanimity among bitter political enemies on this matter is quite striking.
Then of course there was the matter of the withdrawal of the appeal. Of course MacAskill is a lawyer. Perhaps he's only acting in solidarity with the Scottish legal establishment in not wanting to have the dirty linen of Camp Zeist washed in full public view. However, the suspicion does linger that once again we have a politician, unconnected to any of the earlier shenanigans, who finds out stuff about this case that persuades him he really doesn't want it to see the light of day.
Of course, Hayes and Feraday are English, and no embarrassment to the Scottish legal system. We have no concrete evidence of Scottish police manipulating evidence, though no doubt it's always possible.
I'd just like to get Kenny MacAskill in a deserted alley with a set of thumbscrews....
There is no evidence of the Scottish Police manipulating evidence. There is however copious evidence of them ignoring it in their attempt to "square the circle".
ReplyDelete