[Various organs of the media have reported the Scottish Government's reaction to Wednesday's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The full statement issued by the Scottish Government to the media is as follows:]
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Doubts remain over Megrahi’s guilt because of payments made to ‘star’ witnesses
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
There has been widespread condemnation from the United States, in particular, of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
This condemnation must presuppose that the man was, indeed, guilty of playing a part in the Lockerbie atrocity, yet America is silent concerning the findings of Scotland’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which indicated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
It may be an uncomfortable exercise for the senators, but perhaps they should don their reading glasses and look a lot closer to home. If they will examine the website of their own Rewards for Justice Program in Washington DC, they will find Megrahi’s name among those brought to “justice” by disbursement of RfJ funds.
If they will then look at the website set up on behalf of Megrahi by his defence team, they will find extracts from a policeman’s diary kept during the investigations into Lockerbie on the island of Malta.
These extracts show that the policeman knew that the shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who later claimed haltingly to identify Megrahi in court as the buyer of the clothes, (remains of which were found at the crash site), was increasingly aware of, and excited by, the offer of substantial reward for him if he would give evidence leading to the conviction of Megrahi. All this, of course, long before Mr Gauci actually did give his evidence in court.
If the proprietor of a small Glasgow clothing store, struggling to feed his family, were to be told that if he gave evidence that he had seen a certain individual buy clothes from his shop some years before, he would receive a gift of $2m, would you trust his evidence? The senators might also like to look at the material surrounding a witness known as Giaka, alleged, in the run up to the trial, to be a “star” witness, but who was shown in court to have been on the payroll of the CIA from before Lockerbie and whose evidence was, therefore, seen as suspect by the court. They might also demand a sight of the suite of CIA cables surrounding this man.
Nor need Westminster feel virtuous. Why did the Metropolitan Police investigation into the break-in at Heathrow the night before Lockerbie remain hidden until after the verdict had been reached? The Crown Office has told me it knew nothing about this until after the verdict.
Why did Lady Thatcher write in 1993 in her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, that, following her support for the USAF bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi in 1986 (two years before Lockerbie) “… there was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years”.
We see that Scotland, to whom the solemn task of trying the accused was passed, was on the receiving end of external political interference in what should have been a purely criminal case.
If the senators want to know the truth about this appalling atrocity, let them throw their weight behind the need for a process to be set up within Scotland, objectively to review the case against Megrahi.
Only we ourselves, in the absence of Megrahi’s appeal, can redeem our country’s reputation for justice and humanity, and ensure that our own citizens are protected by a wise and independent judicial system.
[For more from Dr Swire, see the Newsnet Scotland article "Swire: Lockerbie Witness Knew of $2 million Payment for Conviction". The readers' comments -- many supporting an independent inquiry notwithstanding this goes against SNP Government policy -- are also worth reading.]
There has been widespread condemnation from the United States, in particular, of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
This condemnation must presuppose that the man was, indeed, guilty of playing a part in the Lockerbie atrocity, yet America is silent concerning the findings of Scotland’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which indicated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
It may be an uncomfortable exercise for the senators, but perhaps they should don their reading glasses and look a lot closer to home. If they will examine the website of their own Rewards for Justice Program in Washington DC, they will find Megrahi’s name among those brought to “justice” by disbursement of RfJ funds.
If they will then look at the website set up on behalf of Megrahi by his defence team, they will find extracts from a policeman’s diary kept during the investigations into Lockerbie on the island of Malta.
These extracts show that the policeman knew that the shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who later claimed haltingly to identify Megrahi in court as the buyer of the clothes, (remains of which were found at the crash site), was increasingly aware of, and excited by, the offer of substantial reward for him if he would give evidence leading to the conviction of Megrahi. All this, of course, long before Mr Gauci actually did give his evidence in court.
If the proprietor of a small Glasgow clothing store, struggling to feed his family, were to be told that if he gave evidence that he had seen a certain individual buy clothes from his shop some years before, he would receive a gift of $2m, would you trust his evidence? The senators might also like to look at the material surrounding a witness known as Giaka, alleged, in the run up to the trial, to be a “star” witness, but who was shown in court to have been on the payroll of the CIA from before Lockerbie and whose evidence was, therefore, seen as suspect by the court. They might also demand a sight of the suite of CIA cables surrounding this man.
Nor need Westminster feel virtuous. Why did the Metropolitan Police investigation into the break-in at Heathrow the night before Lockerbie remain hidden until after the verdict had been reached? The Crown Office has told me it knew nothing about this until after the verdict.
Why did Lady Thatcher write in 1993 in her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, that, following her support for the USAF bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi in 1986 (two years before Lockerbie) “… there was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years”.
We see that Scotland, to whom the solemn task of trying the accused was passed, was on the receiving end of external political interference in what should have been a purely criminal case.
If the senators want to know the truth about this appalling atrocity, let them throw their weight behind the need for a process to be set up within Scotland, objectively to review the case against Megrahi.
Only we ourselves, in the absence of Megrahi’s appeal, can redeem our country’s reputation for justice and humanity, and ensure that our own citizens are protected by a wise and independent judicial system.
[For more from Dr Swire, see the Newsnet Scotland article "Swire: Lockerbie Witness Knew of $2 million Payment for Conviction". The readers' comments -- many supporting an independent inquiry notwithstanding this goes against SNP Government policy -- are also worth reading.]
The Al-Megrahi release: one year later
[This is the heading over the official record of yesterday's hearing by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It contains a video of the proceedings and transcripts of the evidence and can be accessed here. I am indebted to blog commentator Bunntamas for supplying this link.
Of the media coverage of the hearing, perhaps the best is in The Wall Street Journal. Its report is headlined "US says Scotland ignored request to examine Lockerbie bomber" and reads in part:]
Scotland disregarded a US request last year for "an independent and comprehensive medical exam" to determine whether the Lockerbie bomber was close enough to death to qualify for compassionate release from jail under Scottish guidelines, a Department of Justice official said Wednesday.
The statement, made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, came in a long-awaited US Senate hearing on the release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi (...)
"The release on compassionate grounds was deeply, deeply flawed and perhaps even intentionally skewed to allow for al-Megrahi's release," Sen Robert Menendez (D, NJ), who chaired the committee, said in his opening remarks.
During the hearing, Mr Swartz said Attorney General Eric Holder told Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill that the US disagreed vehemently with any decision to release Mr Megrahi from jail.
The US also told the Scottish government that, in the event Scotland decided to go against US wishes and release Mr Megrahi anyway, it should do so only under two conditions: One, that Mr Megrahi should first undergo an "independent and comprehensive medical exam establishing that he had three months to live," and two, that Mr Megrahi be kept under observation in Scotland instead of being sent home to Libya, Mr Swartz said.
"As you know, sadly, neither condition was met," Mr Swartz said. (...)
During the hearing, prostate-cancer experts James Mohler and Oliver Sartor testified that the three-month prognosis that secured Mr Megrahi's release made no sense, given that the convicted bomber was considering starting chemotherapy for the first time around the time of his release.
"There is no conceivable way that a cancer specialist or anyone familiar with the treatment of prostate cancer could have given Mr Megrahi a three-month survival prognosis," Dr Mohler said.
Ms McEldowney and Sen Menendez reiterated calls for Scotland to release the full medical documents that led to the prognosis. "The only medical report relevant to the Cabinet Secretary's decision was the report of Dr Andrew Fraser, which has already been published by the Scottish Government," a Scottish government spokeswoman said Wednesday.
[The report in The Times is headlined "Fury at Senate aide’s claim on al-Megrahi treatment" and contains the following:]
Alex Salmond’s government reacted with fury last night after claims were made to a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had received chemotherapy treatment before leaving Scotland.
The suggestion was made by an aide to Senator Robert Menendez, who is heading the Capitol Hill hearing, after a visit by the unnamed member of staff to Scotland earlier this month. The Scottish government said last night that it had written to the Senate hearing demanding that “the misinformation” be corrected.
The aide, in a report to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he had met George Burgess, Scotland’s deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing, at the time of al-Megrahi’s release. According to the aide, Mr Burgess said the bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland.
The aide also claimed that the prognosis that al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, had only three months to live was made by a prison doctor and not, as the Scottish government has said, by Dr Andrew Fraser, the medical director of the Scottish Prison Service. (...)
The aide’s version of events would appear to conflict with the published minute of the prison meeting between al-Megrahi and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, two weeks before the Libyan’s release. This quoted al-Megrahi as telling Mr MacAskill that he was due to start chemotherapy. (...)
A Scottish government spokesman said: “The Senator’s staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed. We wrote to the committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.”
[The Telegraph website's report headlined "Cancer experts brand Lockerbie bomber release 'ridiculous'" can be read here; Newsnet Scotland's report headed "Labour urge US Senators to 'join with us' as both question Megrahi medical evidence" can be read here; that on the website of The Financial Times can be read here; and that on Express website can be read here.]
Of the media coverage of the hearing, perhaps the best is in The Wall Street Journal. Its report is headlined "US says Scotland ignored request to examine Lockerbie bomber" and reads in part:]
Scotland disregarded a US request last year for "an independent and comprehensive medical exam" to determine whether the Lockerbie bomber was close enough to death to qualify for compassionate release from jail under Scottish guidelines, a Department of Justice official said Wednesday.
The statement, made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, came in a long-awaited US Senate hearing on the release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi (...)
"The release on compassionate grounds was deeply, deeply flawed and perhaps even intentionally skewed to allow for al-Megrahi's release," Sen Robert Menendez (D, NJ), who chaired the committee, said in his opening remarks.
During the hearing, Mr Swartz said Attorney General Eric Holder told Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill that the US disagreed vehemently with any decision to release Mr Megrahi from jail.
The US also told the Scottish government that, in the event Scotland decided to go against US wishes and release Mr Megrahi anyway, it should do so only under two conditions: One, that Mr Megrahi should first undergo an "independent and comprehensive medical exam establishing that he had three months to live," and two, that Mr Megrahi be kept under observation in Scotland instead of being sent home to Libya, Mr Swartz said.
"As you know, sadly, neither condition was met," Mr Swartz said. (...)
During the hearing, prostate-cancer experts James Mohler and Oliver Sartor testified that the three-month prognosis that secured Mr Megrahi's release made no sense, given that the convicted bomber was considering starting chemotherapy for the first time around the time of his release.
"There is no conceivable way that a cancer specialist or anyone familiar with the treatment of prostate cancer could have given Mr Megrahi a three-month survival prognosis," Dr Mohler said.
Ms McEldowney and Sen Menendez reiterated calls for Scotland to release the full medical documents that led to the prognosis. "The only medical report relevant to the Cabinet Secretary's decision was the report of Dr Andrew Fraser, which has already been published by the Scottish Government," a Scottish government spokeswoman said Wednesday.
[The report in The Times is headlined "Fury at Senate aide’s claim on al-Megrahi treatment" and contains the following:]
Alex Salmond’s government reacted with fury last night after claims were made to a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had received chemotherapy treatment before leaving Scotland.
The suggestion was made by an aide to Senator Robert Menendez, who is heading the Capitol Hill hearing, after a visit by the unnamed member of staff to Scotland earlier this month. The Scottish government said last night that it had written to the Senate hearing demanding that “the misinformation” be corrected.
The aide, in a report to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he had met George Burgess, Scotland’s deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing, at the time of al-Megrahi’s release. According to the aide, Mr Burgess said the bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland.
The aide also claimed that the prognosis that al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, had only three months to live was made by a prison doctor and not, as the Scottish government has said, by Dr Andrew Fraser, the medical director of the Scottish Prison Service. (...)
The aide’s version of events would appear to conflict with the published minute of the prison meeting between al-Megrahi and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, two weeks before the Libyan’s release. This quoted al-Megrahi as telling Mr MacAskill that he was due to start chemotherapy. (...)
A Scottish government spokesman said: “The Senator’s staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed. We wrote to the committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.”
[The Telegraph website's report headlined "Cancer experts brand Lockerbie bomber release 'ridiculous'" can be read here; Newsnet Scotland's report headed "Labour urge US Senators to 'join with us' as both question Megrahi medical evidence" can be read here; that on the website of The Financial Times can be read here; and that on Express website can be read here.]
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
US has no records on BP and Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report from The Associated Press news agency on today's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. It reads in part:]
A State Department official said Wednesday that a review of government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison.
The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year outraged families of U.S. victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating whether the British-based oil company had sought his freedom to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, told lawmakers that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
BP has acknowledged that it had urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify al-Megrahi's case. (...)
McEldowney noted that in 1998, the US and UK wrote a letter to the United Nations secretary general, outlining an agreement for al-Megrahi and another suspect, Amin Khalifa Fhimah, to be tried before a Scottish court established in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted but Fhimah was acquitted. The letter stated, "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom."
She said that back then, the US sought binding assurances that would happen, but the British countered that they couldn't legally bind the hands of future governments.
"They nonetheless assured us of their political commitment that, if convicted, al-Megrahi would remain in Scotland until the completion of his sentence," McEldowney said.
Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general, said that both the Justice and State departments stressed that al-Megrahi serve his full sentence in Scotland from the very beginning.
"This was one of the earliest issues raised by the United States in connection with the negotiations for a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands, and the United States continued to raise it following Megrahi's conviction and incarceration," he said in prepared testimony.
Wednesday's hearing was originally scheduled for July, but senators postponed it when they couldn't get the man they wanted to testify — outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward. The company instead offered up a regional vice president for Europe.
In a letter to Sen Robert Menendez, D-NJ, this week, Hayward reiterated that BP had no involvement in al-Megrahi's release, and that "no BP witness nor document" could shed any light on the issue.
[A report on the hearing on the STV News website headlined "No evidence of Al-Megrahi deal" contains the following:]
A review of US Government records has found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, it has emerged.
US State Department official Nancy McEldowney confirmed that the Department had "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
She was speaking in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which is investigating claims of a deal between BP and the Libyan and Scottish Governments to release Al-Megrahi in exchange for oil concessions. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months.
“The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'.”
[The report on the BBC News website contains the following:]
Senate committee chairman Robert Menendez also suggested that there had been confusion over whether or not Megrahi had received chemotherapy prior to release.
Megrahi had indicated, and Scottish medical records seemed to confirm, that he had not had chemotherapy, Mr Menendez said.
But the senator said evidence from an unnamed Scottish official suggested Megrahi had started chemotherapy in July 2009.
Mr Menendez said that the conflicting accounts suggested Scottish government documents had been changed. [Note by RB: if Sen Menendez actually said this, then he is an even greater clown and charlatan than I had supposed him to be.]
In its statement, the Scottish government said it was a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point.
[A report on the website of The Financial Times headlined "US says Lockerbie bomber not dying" can be read here; and a report on the Mail website headlined "Lockerbie bomber's release 'manipulated' by Scottish government to say he was close to death claim US senators as BP also blasted over affair" can be read here.]
A State Department official said Wednesday that a review of government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison.
The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year outraged families of U.S. victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating whether the British-based oil company had sought his freedom to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, told lawmakers that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
BP has acknowledged that it had urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify al-Megrahi's case. (...)
McEldowney noted that in 1998, the US and UK wrote a letter to the United Nations secretary general, outlining an agreement for al-Megrahi and another suspect, Amin Khalifa Fhimah, to be tried before a Scottish court established in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted but Fhimah was acquitted. The letter stated, "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom."
She said that back then, the US sought binding assurances that would happen, but the British countered that they couldn't legally bind the hands of future governments.
"They nonetheless assured us of their political commitment that, if convicted, al-Megrahi would remain in Scotland until the completion of his sentence," McEldowney said.
Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general, said that both the Justice and State departments stressed that al-Megrahi serve his full sentence in Scotland from the very beginning.
"This was one of the earliest issues raised by the United States in connection with the negotiations for a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands, and the United States continued to raise it following Megrahi's conviction and incarceration," he said in prepared testimony.
Wednesday's hearing was originally scheduled for July, but senators postponed it when they couldn't get the man they wanted to testify — outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward. The company instead offered up a regional vice president for Europe.
In a letter to Sen Robert Menendez, D-NJ, this week, Hayward reiterated that BP had no involvement in al-Megrahi's release, and that "no BP witness nor document" could shed any light on the issue.
[A report on the hearing on the STV News website headlined "No evidence of Al-Megrahi deal" contains the following:]
A review of US Government records has found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, it has emerged.
US State Department official Nancy McEldowney confirmed that the Department had "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
She was speaking in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which is investigating claims of a deal between BP and the Libyan and Scottish Governments to release Al-Megrahi in exchange for oil concessions. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months.
“The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'.”
[The report on the BBC News website contains the following:]
Senate committee chairman Robert Menendez also suggested that there had been confusion over whether or not Megrahi had received chemotherapy prior to release.
Megrahi had indicated, and Scottish medical records seemed to confirm, that he had not had chemotherapy, Mr Menendez said.
But the senator said evidence from an unnamed Scottish official suggested Megrahi had started chemotherapy in July 2009.
Mr Menendez said that the conflicting accounts suggested Scottish government documents had been changed. [Note by RB: if Sen Menendez actually said this, then he is an even greater clown and charlatan than I had supposed him to be.]
In its statement, the Scottish government said it was a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point.
[A report on the website of The Financial Times headlined "US says Lockerbie bomber not dying" can be read here; and a report on the Mail website headlined "Lockerbie bomber's release 'manipulated' by Scottish government to say he was close to death claim US senators as BP also blasted over affair" can be read here.]
“Ongoing” police investigation into Lockerbie bombing slammed
[This is the heading on a press release just issued by Christine Grahame MSP. It reads as follows:]
Only one full-time Scottish police officer is currently working on the Lockerbie bombing investigation which authorities said was still “ongoing” following the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi. The revelation has prompted SNP MSP Christine Grahame to describe the “open” investigation as little more than a device to avoid Police disclosing a range of controversial material related to the case under Freedom of Information laws. Ms Grahame said:
“Correspondence I have received from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Police has confirmed that only one full-time police officer is currently working on the case.
“The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 previously resulted in the biggest police investigation ever carried out in the UK and I think this revelation simply confirms that the “open” nature of the investigation is little more than a device to avoid the authorities disclosing additional uncomfortable facts which undermine the prosecution case.
“I wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Police back in August to determine what progress had been made in the investigation over the past 12 months, but they are unable to say if they have any new leads.
“I also asked the Chief Constable to confirm whether the Iranian backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command were no longer suspects in the case. I posed this question because the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, recently told journalists that he was unhappy about the manner in which the police investigation failed to thoroughly pursue the links to the PFLP-GC. Lord Fraser implied it was “reasonable” to conclude that members of that terrorist organisation were in fact US intelligence assets and this was the reason that end of the investigation was not followed through and the suspects released before Scottish police investigators were able to interrogate them.
“Dumfries and Galloway Police have not been able to confirm or deny that the Iranian sponsored PFLP-GC remain suspects in this case.
“It is increasingly apparent that only a full and thorough public inquiry will address the outstanding concerns about the safety of the conviction and publicly reveal all the known facts related to this case, including the reasons why key suspects in the PFLP-GC were not properly investigated.
“The fact Dumfries and Galloway Police only have one full time officer working on the case poses some significant questions about how keen they are to pursue all avenues.”
[A report based on this press release appears on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times.
Further information regarding the status of the "investigation" from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway can be found in this blog post from 29 October 2009.]
Only one full-time Scottish police officer is currently working on the Lockerbie bombing investigation which authorities said was still “ongoing” following the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi. The revelation has prompted SNP MSP Christine Grahame to describe the “open” investigation as little more than a device to avoid Police disclosing a range of controversial material related to the case under Freedom of Information laws. Ms Grahame said:
“Correspondence I have received from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Police has confirmed that only one full-time police officer is currently working on the case.
“The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 previously resulted in the biggest police investigation ever carried out in the UK and I think this revelation simply confirms that the “open” nature of the investigation is little more than a device to avoid the authorities disclosing additional uncomfortable facts which undermine the prosecution case.
“I wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Police back in August to determine what progress had been made in the investigation over the past 12 months, but they are unable to say if they have any new leads.
“I also asked the Chief Constable to confirm whether the Iranian backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command were no longer suspects in the case. I posed this question because the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, recently told journalists that he was unhappy about the manner in which the police investigation failed to thoroughly pursue the links to the PFLP-GC. Lord Fraser implied it was “reasonable” to conclude that members of that terrorist organisation were in fact US intelligence assets and this was the reason that end of the investigation was not followed through and the suspects released before Scottish police investigators were able to interrogate them.
“Dumfries and Galloway Police have not been able to confirm or deny that the Iranian sponsored PFLP-GC remain suspects in this case.
“It is increasingly apparent that only a full and thorough public inquiry will address the outstanding concerns about the safety of the conviction and publicly reveal all the known facts related to this case, including the reasons why key suspects in the PFLP-GC were not properly investigated.
“The fact Dumfries and Galloway Police only have one full time officer working on the case poses some significant questions about how keen they are to pursue all avenues.”
[A report based on this press release appears on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times.
Further information regarding the status of the "investigation" from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway can be found in this blog post from 29 October 2009.]
Parliamentary petition launched for Holyrood action on Pan Am 103 investigation
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The Justice for Megrahi committee, originators of the international petition calling for a full inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle from 1988 to the present, have announced that they have commenced the launch of an action via the Holyrood public petitions mechanism, to request the Scottish Parliament to initiate action.
The petitions mechanism was launched to allow the public to directly access the legislative process without relying on an MSP to raise proceedings, in theory thereby bypassing potential party political blockades.
Both the Holyrood Parliament and the UK Parliament at Westminster have stated that they would cooperate with such an inquiry, but both have signalled that they believe it is the responsibility of the other Parliament to launch it.
Last week, following his return from Tripoli where he met with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr Jim Swire announced that the UK families of victims of the Pan Am 103 would resurrect the appeal dropped by Megrahi, evidently under pressure and the mistaken belief that it would assist his return to Libya.
He also added that Megrahi's own daughter had become a fully qualified lawyer since his incarceration. It is not yet known if she will play an active part in the resurrected appeal proceedings.
[As soon as the e-petition has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, I shall reproduce its terms on this blog.]
The Justice for Megrahi committee, originators of the international petition calling for a full inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle from 1988 to the present, have announced that they have commenced the launch of an action via the Holyrood public petitions mechanism, to request the Scottish Parliament to initiate action.
The petitions mechanism was launched to allow the public to directly access the legislative process without relying on an MSP to raise proceedings, in theory thereby bypassing potential party political blockades.
Both the Holyrood Parliament and the UK Parliament at Westminster have stated that they would cooperate with such an inquiry, but both have signalled that they believe it is the responsibility of the other Parliament to launch it.
Last week, following his return from Tripoli where he met with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr Jim Swire announced that the UK families of victims of the Pan Am 103 would resurrect the appeal dropped by Megrahi, evidently under pressure and the mistaken belief that it would assist his return to Libya.
He also added that Megrahi's own daughter had become a fully qualified lawyer since his incarceration. It is not yet known if she will play an active part in the resurrected appeal proceedings.
[As soon as the e-petition has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, I shall reproduce its terms on this blog.]
Senate asks why Lockerbie bomber was freed
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of The Wall Street Journal. It reads in part:]
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a long-awaited hearing Wednesday that aims to find out why Scotland last year gave a controversial "compassionate release" to cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
But the session may only widen the gulf between US politicians demanding a more detailed medical explanation of how Mr Megrahi won his freedom and Scottish officials who are declining to provide one.
A Senate staffer's fact-finding trip to Britain this month appears to have produced even more conflict between the US and Scotland, particularly surrounding the details of Mr Megrahi's prognosis and the question of whether he began chemotherapy treatments before or after he was released by the Scots.
The Senate staffer met with George Burgess, who was Scotland's deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing at the time of Mr Megrahi's release. According to an aide to Sen Robert Menendez, (D, NJ), the senator who is heading the hearing, Mr Burgess said the convicted bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland. According to the aide, the Scottish official also said it was Peter Kay, Mr Megrahi's general practitioner in the Scottish prison system, who issued the prognosis that Mr Megrahi had about three months to live—a guideline prisoners must meet to qualify for compassionate release in Scotland. That prognosis was later sanctioned by Scottish Prison Service medical administrator Andrew Fraser. The hearing stands to address both those assertions on Wednesday, the aide said.
Scotland, however, says that isn't an accurate portrayal of what was said in the meeting. Mr Burgess couldn't be reached to comment.
"It is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point," a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said in an email Tuesday. She added that "the responsibility to provide a reasonable estimate of prognosis was Dr Fraser's—no one else's—and therefore the prognosis was his." The spokeswoman didn't say whether Dr Kay agreed to the prognosis, or made it initially. (...)
Mr Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, said he didn't feel comfortable divulging details of his client's medical treatment. Despite the haggling between the US and Scotland over when the chemotherapy began and which doctor made the prognosis, the issue of Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy—which had been discussed around the time of his release—has added weight to the Senate's call for the release of the medical documents.
One of the primary points of inquiry for the Senate is Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy treatment, the aide to Sen Menendez said. Doctors normally wouldn't administer chemotherapy to a patient seen to be three months from death, experts have said.
Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government are sending representatives to testify at the hearing. Nor is BP plc, which has at times been accused of influencing the decision to release Mr. Megrahi to advance its oil interests in Libya. The Senate committee has said it will explore "the possible influence of commercial interests" on Mr Megrahi's release.
BP has said it lobbied to speed the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya ratified in spring 2009. But the oil giant's involvement in the Megrahi case has so far been a moot point. Though Mr Megrahi applied to be transferred under that agreement last year, his application was rejected; instead, he went free thanks to a separate application under Scottish law's provision for compassionate release.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a long-awaited hearing Wednesday that aims to find out why Scotland last year gave a controversial "compassionate release" to cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
But the session may only widen the gulf between US politicians demanding a more detailed medical explanation of how Mr Megrahi won his freedom and Scottish officials who are declining to provide one.
A Senate staffer's fact-finding trip to Britain this month appears to have produced even more conflict between the US and Scotland, particularly surrounding the details of Mr Megrahi's prognosis and the question of whether he began chemotherapy treatments before or after he was released by the Scots.
The Senate staffer met with George Burgess, who was Scotland's deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing at the time of Mr Megrahi's release. According to an aide to Sen Robert Menendez, (D, NJ), the senator who is heading the hearing, Mr Burgess said the convicted bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland. According to the aide, the Scottish official also said it was Peter Kay, Mr Megrahi's general practitioner in the Scottish prison system, who issued the prognosis that Mr Megrahi had about three months to live—a guideline prisoners must meet to qualify for compassionate release in Scotland. That prognosis was later sanctioned by Scottish Prison Service medical administrator Andrew Fraser. The hearing stands to address both those assertions on Wednesday, the aide said.
Scotland, however, says that isn't an accurate portrayal of what was said in the meeting. Mr Burgess couldn't be reached to comment.
"It is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point," a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said in an email Tuesday. She added that "the responsibility to provide a reasonable estimate of prognosis was Dr Fraser's—no one else's—and therefore the prognosis was his." The spokeswoman didn't say whether Dr Kay agreed to the prognosis, or made it initially. (...)
Mr Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, said he didn't feel comfortable divulging details of his client's medical treatment. Despite the haggling between the US and Scotland over when the chemotherapy began and which doctor made the prognosis, the issue of Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy—which had been discussed around the time of his release—has added weight to the Senate's call for the release of the medical documents.
One of the primary points of inquiry for the Senate is Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy treatment, the aide to Sen Menendez said. Doctors normally wouldn't administer chemotherapy to a patient seen to be three months from death, experts have said.
Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government are sending representatives to testify at the hearing. Nor is BP plc, which has at times been accused of influencing the decision to release Mr. Megrahi to advance its oil interests in Libya. The Senate committee has said it will explore "the possible influence of commercial interests" on Mr Megrahi's release.
BP has said it lobbied to speed the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya ratified in spring 2009. But the oil giant's involvement in the Megrahi case has so far been a moot point. Though Mr Megrahi applied to be transferred under that agreement last year, his application was rejected; instead, he went free thanks to a separate application under Scottish law's provision for compassionate release.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Lockerbie and the senators
[In the context of tomorrow's session of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the release of Mr Megrahi, I think it worthwhile to share the contents of a letter sent by Dr Jim Swire on 28 July 2010 to The Herald but never published.]
In April 1991, before Mr Megrahi had even been indicted, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of the investigating Scottish police was on Malta, and went to interview Vincent Vassallo, manager of the airport cafe at Luqa airport (Malta).
On page 7642 of the publicly available trial transcripts, in giving his evidence Vassallo says:
"What I remember is that when they came to my office, Harry Bell asked me -- he said 'Try to remember well. You know there is a large reward, and if you wish to have more money, perhaps go abroad somewhere, you can do so.'"
So potential monetary rewards seem to have figured in the process from before even the issue of the indictments against Fhima and Megrahi which occurred at the end of 1991, and of course long before the actual trial.
Harry Bell was keeping a diary, but its contents were not divulged to the court, since he had 'left it in Glasgow', though its existence was known to the court, nor was the above allegation from Vassallo taken up by the defence nor the judges.
The contents of the Bell diaries are now in the public domain on the web. They show that DCI Bell was aware of the US reward offers of $10,000 dollars 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow, and that Gauci, the key Maltese shopkeeper witness had become increasingly aware that money was on offer. The FBI officers involved in the case, according to Bell, did not record what role, if any, they had played in the reward scenario. The US organisation 'Rewards for Justice' however records Mr Megrahi's name as someone brought to 'justice' by their payments.
I had hoped to persuade Senator Kerry [Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has, however, delegated the role in relation to the Megrahi issue to Senator Robert Menendez] to raise his sights to the question of whether Megrahi really was guilty or not. That sadly has not happened, but seems rather more important than attempting to link BP to Megrahi's compassionate release.
However perhaps the senators could re-ignite their inquiry by arranging to pay each of those they wish to interview a similar amount for flying over to give evidence to them, though for senior British poIiticians or BP CEOs they might have to request a good deal more money from their 'Rewards for Justice' source, than was on offer to a humble Maltese shopkeeper.
Man, think of the deep-fried Mars bars you could get for that sort of money.
According to my father's edition (1933) of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of a bribe is " A reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct (1535)", but then I don't think there were any senators around in 1535 were there?
Seriously, the situation is that whether the senators wish to address the issue of guilt or not, someone must do so and Scotland has a problem.
Our SCCRC found that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, yet by withdrawing the second appeal, which had been authorised by the SCCRC's findings, Mr Megrahi has effectively blocked the obvious route to a full and honest re-examination of the whole case, since the defence materials remain his property.
We must find a route to re-assess the validity of the verdict, that route must depend on a rigorous reappraisal, under the highest standards of Scots law, but on neither politicians nor bribery.
Justice and truth are beyond price.
In April 1991, before Mr Megrahi had even been indicted, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of the investigating Scottish police was on Malta, and went to interview Vincent Vassallo, manager of the airport cafe at Luqa airport (Malta).
On page 7642 of the publicly available trial transcripts, in giving his evidence Vassallo says:
"What I remember is that when they came to my office, Harry Bell asked me -- he said 'Try to remember well. You know there is a large reward, and if you wish to have more money, perhaps go abroad somewhere, you can do so.'"
So potential monetary rewards seem to have figured in the process from before even the issue of the indictments against Fhima and Megrahi which occurred at the end of 1991, and of course long before the actual trial.
Harry Bell was keeping a diary, but its contents were not divulged to the court, since he had 'left it in Glasgow', though its existence was known to the court, nor was the above allegation from Vassallo taken up by the defence nor the judges.
The contents of the Bell diaries are now in the public domain on the web. They show that DCI Bell was aware of the US reward offers of $10,000 dollars 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow, and that Gauci, the key Maltese shopkeeper witness had become increasingly aware that money was on offer. The FBI officers involved in the case, according to Bell, did not record what role, if any, they had played in the reward scenario. The US organisation 'Rewards for Justice' however records Mr Megrahi's name as someone brought to 'justice' by their payments.
I had hoped to persuade Senator Kerry [Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has, however, delegated the role in relation to the Megrahi issue to Senator Robert Menendez] to raise his sights to the question of whether Megrahi really was guilty or not. That sadly has not happened, but seems rather more important than attempting to link BP to Megrahi's compassionate release.
However perhaps the senators could re-ignite their inquiry by arranging to pay each of those they wish to interview a similar amount for flying over to give evidence to them, though for senior British poIiticians or BP CEOs they might have to request a good deal more money from their 'Rewards for Justice' source, than was on offer to a humble Maltese shopkeeper.
Man, think of the deep-fried Mars bars you could get for that sort of money.
According to my father's edition (1933) of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of a bribe is " A reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct (1535)", but then I don't think there were any senators around in 1535 were there?
Seriously, the situation is that whether the senators wish to address the issue of guilt or not, someone must do so and Scotland has a problem.
Our SCCRC found that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, yet by withdrawing the second appeal, which had been authorised by the SCCRC's findings, Mr Megrahi has effectively blocked the obvious route to a full and honest re-examination of the whole case, since the defence materials remain his property.
We must find a route to re-assess the validity of the verdict, that route must depend on a rigorous reappraisal, under the highest standards of Scots law, but on neither politicians nor bribery.
Justice and truth are beyond price.
Witnesses at US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to hold a hearing this week over last year's controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber two months after a similar hearing was canceled.
One of the leading senators to press for a probe of the release of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), will preside over the hearing on Wednesday morning. But absent the list of scheduled witnesses are many key figures who declined to attend a planned hearing in July that was canceled because of what Menendez called stonewalling by British and Scottish officials.
Scheduled to testify on Wednesday are Nancy McEldowney, a State Department official who deals with European affairs and Bruce Swartz, who is a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's criminal division. Dr James Mohler, a top urologist at a Buffalo, NY cancer center will also appear before the panel. (...)
In July, Menendez sought the testimony of key figures such as Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who freed al-Megrahi and former UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
They also requested that BP CEO Tony Hayward attend the hearing over suspicions that the company lobbied for Megrahi's release in order to secure oil leases in Libya, the bomber's country of origin.
Menendez said in July that the foreign relations panel would shift its focus to a "longer-term multidimensional inquiry" into al-Megrahi's release (...)
[From a report on the US Congress blog The Hill. Just the tiniest hint here of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
One of the leading senators to press for a probe of the release of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), will preside over the hearing on Wednesday morning. But absent the list of scheduled witnesses are many key figures who declined to attend a planned hearing in July that was canceled because of what Menendez called stonewalling by British and Scottish officials.
Scheduled to testify on Wednesday are Nancy McEldowney, a State Department official who deals with European affairs and Bruce Swartz, who is a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's criminal division. Dr James Mohler, a top urologist at a Buffalo, NY cancer center will also appear before the panel. (...)
In July, Menendez sought the testimony of key figures such as Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who freed al-Megrahi and former UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
They also requested that BP CEO Tony Hayward attend the hearing over suspicions that the company lobbied for Megrahi's release in order to secure oil leases in Libya, the bomber's country of origin.
Menendez said in July that the foreign relations panel would shift its focus to a "longer-term multidimensional inquiry" into al-Megrahi's release (...)
[From a report on the US Congress blog The Hill. Just the tiniest hint here of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
Monday, 27 September 2010
Angiolini tells Parliament “no evidence of any criminal act” in Pan Am 103 evidence chain
[This is the headline over a news item just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It relates to the written answers given by the Lord Advocate to questions submitted by Christine Grahame MSP. The news item reads in part:]
The Lord Advocate has told the Holyrood Parliament that “there is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.”
Elish Angiolini was responding to a Parliamentary question from MSP Christine Grahame (...)
Grahame asked Angiolini if she was aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene in the case.
Former Lord Advocate at the time of the trial, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials, and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
Angiolini said in her Parliamentary answer that she was aware of this information, and confirmed that the fragment was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie event.
"There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation," she said.
“The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service,” she said.
In July 2007, one week after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to High Court for Megrahi’s appeal, former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit stating that he had personally manufactured the fragment, and that it had been introduced falsely into the Crown’s evidence chain. He said that he handed the fragment to authorities investigating the case on 22 June 1989, and admitted committing perjury in the Zeist trial, citing fear of his life if his testimony reflected what he narrated in his affidavit. (...)
Angiolini's answers did not narrate what investigations may have been undertaken within the Crown Office or in Scottish police forces to reach the conclusion that there was no evidence of criminal acts.
This is not the first time the conduct of the trail and its handling has been considered a crime. On 14 October 2005, UN Special Observer Hans Kochler concluded that the conduct of the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmend Al Megrahi had concerned him to the extent that a crime may have taken place at Camp Zeist to manufacture the conviction of Megrahi.
“The falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services, etc. are criminal offenses in any country,” Kochler's office said in a statement.
“In view of the above new revelations and in regard to previously known facts as reported in Dr. Koechler’s reports, the question of possible criminal responsibility, under Scots law, of people involved in the Lockerbie trial should be carefully studied by the competent prosecutorial authorities.”
The Lord Advocate has told the Holyrood Parliament that “there is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.”
Elish Angiolini was responding to a Parliamentary question from MSP Christine Grahame (...)
Grahame asked Angiolini if she was aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene in the case.
Former Lord Advocate at the time of the trial, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials, and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
Angiolini said in her Parliamentary answer that she was aware of this information, and confirmed that the fragment was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie event.
"There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation," she said.
“The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service,” she said.
In July 2007, one week after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to High Court for Megrahi’s appeal, former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit stating that he had personally manufactured the fragment, and that it had been introduced falsely into the Crown’s evidence chain. He said that he handed the fragment to authorities investigating the case on 22 June 1989, and admitted committing perjury in the Zeist trial, citing fear of his life if his testimony reflected what he narrated in his affidavit. (...)
Angiolini's answers did not narrate what investigations may have been undertaken within the Crown Office or in Scottish police forces to reach the conclusion that there was no evidence of criminal acts.
This is not the first time the conduct of the trail and its handling has been considered a crime. On 14 October 2005, UN Special Observer Hans Kochler concluded that the conduct of the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmend Al Megrahi had concerned him to the extent that a crime may have taken place at Camp Zeist to manufacture the conviction of Megrahi.
“The falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services, etc. are criminal offenses in any country,” Kochler's office said in a statement.
“In view of the above new revelations and in regard to previously known facts as reported in Dr. Koechler’s reports, the question of possible criminal responsibility, under Scots law, of people involved in the Lockerbie trial should be carefully studied by the competent prosecutorial authorities.”
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Megrahi hearing
According to a snippet in The Wall Street Journal, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is due to hold a hearing on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi on Wednesday, 29 September 2010.
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Megrahi's doctors claim they are trying to cure his cancer
[I am grateful to frequent and valued commentator blogiston for drawing my attention to this report in the Scottish tabloid newspaper the Sunday Mail. It reads in part:]
The Lockerbie bomber’s doctors are trying to cure his cancer, we can reveal.
Senior government sources have told the Sunday Mail that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s treatment was now focused on “cure rather than containment”.
His family said yesterday that he believes he will live to see his name cleared for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie which killed 270 people.
The former Libyan intelligence officer is now splitting his time between his home in the capital Tripoli’s New Damascus suburb and the Tripoli Medical Centre.
A Libyan government source said: “He has amazed everyone with his recovery but is now spending more time in hospital.
“That is because doctors are now more focused on cure, rather than containment.”
A spokesman at the centre declined to comment. (...)
His family said last month that they hoped for a “miracle cure”.
Yesterday, they said he remained in a frail condition but admitted they had increased hope for his long-term prospects.
A spokesman for the family said: “Brother al-Megrahi’s mind is as sharp as ever and he’s putting all of his efforts into clearing his name of this terrible crime.
“The fight for innocence is his absolute passion and all he wants to do is win it.
“He is becoming more and more confident that he can do this and is being given 100 per cent support.”
His brother Abdelnasser said: “He is better but suffering ups and downs, just like any other patient.
“There have been some days which have been very worrying indeed but he is hopeful.”
Megrahi regularly meets legal advisers and government officials who are helping him to examine every detail of the Lockerbie case.
The family spokesman added: “All kind of new evidence is coming to light.
“Much of it will be made public by Brother al-Megrahi when he believes the time is right.”
Megrahi, the only person convicted in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, is viewed as a national hero in Libya.
Many believe his conviction directly led to Britain and the US lifting economic sanctions on the former pariah state.
Earlier this month, Megrahi was visited by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terrorist attack.
The 74-year-old retired GP, who believes Megrahi is innocent, said: ‘‘I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is that he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family and his community and his country.”
Last night, a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “Megrahi was sent home to die on the basis of expert medical advice and he remains terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer.
“As the First Minister said in his letter to US Senators of August 6, ‘the fact remains that Megrahi is dying of cancer’ – and any claims to the contrary are entirely without foundation.”
The Lockerbie bomber’s doctors are trying to cure his cancer, we can reveal.
Senior government sources have told the Sunday Mail that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s treatment was now focused on “cure rather than containment”.
His family said yesterday that he believes he will live to see his name cleared for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie which killed 270 people.
The former Libyan intelligence officer is now splitting his time between his home in the capital Tripoli’s New Damascus suburb and the Tripoli Medical Centre.
A Libyan government source said: “He has amazed everyone with his recovery but is now spending more time in hospital.
“That is because doctors are now more focused on cure, rather than containment.”
A spokesman at the centre declined to comment. (...)
His family said last month that they hoped for a “miracle cure”.
Yesterday, they said he remained in a frail condition but admitted they had increased hope for his long-term prospects.
A spokesman for the family said: “Brother al-Megrahi’s mind is as sharp as ever and he’s putting all of his efforts into clearing his name of this terrible crime.
“The fight for innocence is his absolute passion and all he wants to do is win it.
“He is becoming more and more confident that he can do this and is being given 100 per cent support.”
His brother Abdelnasser said: “He is better but suffering ups and downs, just like any other patient.
“There have been some days which have been very worrying indeed but he is hopeful.”
Megrahi regularly meets legal advisers and government officials who are helping him to examine every detail of the Lockerbie case.
The family spokesman added: “All kind of new evidence is coming to light.
“Much of it will be made public by Brother al-Megrahi when he believes the time is right.”
Megrahi, the only person convicted in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, is viewed as a national hero in Libya.
Many believe his conviction directly led to Britain and the US lifting economic sanctions on the former pariah state.
Earlier this month, Megrahi was visited by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terrorist attack.
The 74-year-old retired GP, who believes Megrahi is innocent, said: ‘‘I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is that he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family and his community and his country.”
Last night, a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “Megrahi was sent home to die on the basis of expert medical advice and he remains terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer.
“As the First Minister said in his letter to US Senators of August 6, ‘the fact remains that Megrahi is dying of cancer’ – and any claims to the contrary are entirely without foundation.”
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Dr Jim Swire: 'I am proud to have met Megrahi ... he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie'
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Mirror newspaper. It reads in part:]
They are two men from wildly different backgrounds - but they share the most extraordinary bond.
Dr Jim Swire last week came face to face with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
Jim's daughter Flora was one of the victims, killed the day before her 24th birthday - but, instead of feeling hatred and anger, he embraced Megrahi.
"We are friends," says Jim, 74. "I believe he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie. We know enough about the other to be confident to know we're trying to achieve the same thing - a re-examination of the verdict."
Megrahi, 58, was convicted of mass murder and jailed for life in 2001. But last cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds. Jim, who heard all the evidence at Megrahi's trial, is convinced he's innocent.
Since first meeting in a Scottish prison in 2008, the pair have struck up an unlikely friendship that has outraged many of the relatives of those killed over Lockerbie. (...)
Megrahi was in the middle of a second appeal against his conviction when Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Minister, freed him in August last year.
Megrahi decided to drop the appeal, although it could have continued in his absence and even after his death.
Jim now wants the case reopened to get to the truth of who was behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the single worst terrorist atrocity on British soil. "We met seeking a common goal - the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice," says Jim.
That task now falls upon Scotland and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
"I am entirely satisfied this man was not guilty as charged and that there is much more credible evidence that points to Syria and Iran." (...)
Flora Swire, who wanted to follow in her GP father's footsteps, had been accepted to study medicine at Cambridge when she died, flying to New York to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.
"She would be 45 now," says Jim. "We always feel the gap. Whenever we are together, at birthdays, weddings or Christmas, there's always somebody missing." In her memory, Jim planted Flora's Wood, near their former family home in Bromsgrove, Worcs, which sat on 17 acres. There are thousands of trees, a silent sanctuary shaped in a huge F. Unsurprisingly, Jim was filled with hatred for Megrahi and Libya when charges were first brought.
But after sitting through an unconvincing trial, Jim changed his mind. "I first met him in Greenock Prison, just before Christmas 2008," he says. "By then he was already uncomfortable sitting in a chair - he was known to have cancer in his spine and pelvis.
"I remember feeling glad that he had agreed to see me and by then I had strong doubts in my mind that he was the man who did it, but I wanted to see for myself, to look him in the eye."
The turning point came when Megrahi handed Jim an envelope. "He had been to the prison shop and bought a Christmas card," recalls Jim. "He wrote on it, 'To Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family.' Now that's a pretty remarkable thing for a devout Muslim to give to a Christian just before the Christian festival of Christmas.
"His attitude strongly reinforced my belief that this was not the guy. Imagine being cooped up in an alien prison for something you hadn't done.
Gift "I feel sorry for him. He has spent 10 years of his life locked up, under false pretences I believe, during which time he has developed this rampant cancer." (...)
The fact that Megrahi can now die in dignity surrounded by loved ones gives Jim great comfort but he still wants to lodge a posthumous appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
"If Megrahi's relatives do not wish to push for an appeal, we will," he says.
"I don't want my daughter's death to be remembered against a verdict I think is false. I want to know who did kill her."
At the end of their hour together an exhausted Megrahi began to fade, his eyes falling heavy.
Jim got up out of his seat and clutched his friend's hands. "He is a very sick man and was getting tired," says Jim.
"So I said my goodbyes - maybe I'll see him again before he goes."
They are two men from wildly different backgrounds - but they share the most extraordinary bond.
Dr Jim Swire last week came face to face with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
Jim's daughter Flora was one of the victims, killed the day before her 24th birthday - but, instead of feeling hatred and anger, he embraced Megrahi.
"We are friends," says Jim, 74. "I believe he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie. We know enough about the other to be confident to know we're trying to achieve the same thing - a re-examination of the verdict."
Megrahi, 58, was convicted of mass murder and jailed for life in 2001. But last cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds. Jim, who heard all the evidence at Megrahi's trial, is convinced he's innocent.
Since first meeting in a Scottish prison in 2008, the pair have struck up an unlikely friendship that has outraged many of the relatives of those killed over Lockerbie. (...)
Megrahi was in the middle of a second appeal against his conviction when Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Minister, freed him in August last year.
Megrahi decided to drop the appeal, although it could have continued in his absence and even after his death.
Jim now wants the case reopened to get to the truth of who was behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the single worst terrorist atrocity on British soil. "We met seeking a common goal - the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice," says Jim.
That task now falls upon Scotland and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
"I am entirely satisfied this man was not guilty as charged and that there is much more credible evidence that points to Syria and Iran." (...)
Flora Swire, who wanted to follow in her GP father's footsteps, had been accepted to study medicine at Cambridge when she died, flying to New York to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.
"She would be 45 now," says Jim. "We always feel the gap. Whenever we are together, at birthdays, weddings or Christmas, there's always somebody missing." In her memory, Jim planted Flora's Wood, near their former family home in Bromsgrove, Worcs, which sat on 17 acres. There are thousands of trees, a silent sanctuary shaped in a huge F. Unsurprisingly, Jim was filled with hatred for Megrahi and Libya when charges were first brought.
But after sitting through an unconvincing trial, Jim changed his mind. "I first met him in Greenock Prison, just before Christmas 2008," he says. "By then he was already uncomfortable sitting in a chair - he was known to have cancer in his spine and pelvis.
"I remember feeling glad that he had agreed to see me and by then I had strong doubts in my mind that he was the man who did it, but I wanted to see for myself, to look him in the eye."
The turning point came when Megrahi handed Jim an envelope. "He had been to the prison shop and bought a Christmas card," recalls Jim. "He wrote on it, 'To Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family.' Now that's a pretty remarkable thing for a devout Muslim to give to a Christian just before the Christian festival of Christmas.
"His attitude strongly reinforced my belief that this was not the guy. Imagine being cooped up in an alien prison for something you hadn't done.
Gift "I feel sorry for him. He has spent 10 years of his life locked up, under false pretences I believe, during which time he has developed this rampant cancer." (...)
The fact that Megrahi can now die in dignity surrounded by loved ones gives Jim great comfort but he still wants to lodge a posthumous appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
"If Megrahi's relatives do not wish to push for an appeal, we will," he says.
"I don't want my daughter's death to be remembered against a verdict I think is false. I want to know who did kill her."
At the end of their hour together an exhausted Megrahi began to fade, his eyes falling heavy.
Jim got up out of his seat and clutched his friend's hands. "He is a very sick man and was getting tired," says Jim.
"So I said my goodbyes - maybe I'll see him again before he goes."
Friday, 24 September 2010
Scottish Parliament Written Answers
24 September 2010
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish any information it holds related to payments reportedly made by US authorities to key witnesses either before or after the trial of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, specifically payments to Tony Gauci, in relation to evidence he gave into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
(S3W-35942)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
The only forum in which the Scottish Government or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can make public any information connected to witnesses involved in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing is in judicial proceedings in Scotland.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of comments by the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
(S3W-35943)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
I am aware of comments reported to have been made by my predecessor, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
The fragment of electronic timer recovered from the wreckage of flight Pan Am 103, known as PT35, was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene with regard to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. (S3W-35944)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.
A fragment of electronic timer recovered from the wreckage of flight Pan Am 103, known as PT35, was taken to the FBI laboratory in Washington DC by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish any information it holds related to payments reportedly made by US authorities to key witnesses either before or after the trial of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, specifically payments to Tony Gauci, in relation to evidence he gave into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
(S3W-35942)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
The only forum in which the Scottish Government or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can make public any information connected to witnesses involved in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing is in judicial proceedings in Scotland.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of comments by the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
(S3W-35943)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
I am aware of comments reported to have been made by my predecessor, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
The fragment of electronic timer recovered from the wreckage of flight Pan Am 103, known as PT35, was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service.
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene with regard to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. (S3W-35944)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.
A fragment of electronic timer recovered from the wreckage of flight Pan Am 103, known as PT35, was taken to the FBI laboratory in Washington DC by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service.
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Bite the bullet, Alex!
[This is the headline over my most recent column in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It can be read here. The magazine's associated news item can be accessed here. It reads as follows:]
Professor Robert Black has challenged First Minister Alex Salmond to "immediately set up an independent inquiry into the full circumstances of the Lockerbie case" and adds that the Government's view that it does not have the necessary powers to do so "will no longer wash".
"Until such time as, at the very least, the six grounds on which the SCCRC concluded that he might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice are addressed, the Scottish criminal justice system will languish at home and abroad under a cloud of suspicion - and rightly so," Black says, writing exclusively in The Firm.
Black, a signatory to an international petition before the UN calling for such a widespread review, says the Scottish Government must not be allowed to "duck" its responsibilities. Earlier this week, Dr Jim Swire announced that UK families of the Pan Am 103 event plan to resurrect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's dropped appeal.
"But why let the matter drag on? The Scottish Government should immediately set up an independent inquiry into the full circumstances of the Lockerbie case. The excuse that under the devolution settlement Scotland does not have the necessary powers will no longer wash. The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet," he says.
"This is undeniably a Scottish issue and the Scottish Government must not be allowed to duck it. Over to you, Alex. You know it’s the right thing to do."
[BBC Two Newsnight Scotland's programme on this issue can be viewed here.]
Professor Robert Black has challenged First Minister Alex Salmond to "immediately set up an independent inquiry into the full circumstances of the Lockerbie case" and adds that the Government's view that it does not have the necessary powers to do so "will no longer wash".
"Until such time as, at the very least, the six grounds on which the SCCRC concluded that he might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice are addressed, the Scottish criminal justice system will languish at home and abroad under a cloud of suspicion - and rightly so," Black says, writing exclusively in The Firm.
Black, a signatory to an international petition before the UN calling for such a widespread review, says the Scottish Government must not be allowed to "duck" its responsibilities. Earlier this week, Dr Jim Swire announced that UK families of the Pan Am 103 event plan to resurrect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's dropped appeal.
"But why let the matter drag on? The Scottish Government should immediately set up an independent inquiry into the full circumstances of the Lockerbie case. The excuse that under the devolution settlement Scotland does not have the necessary powers will no longer wash. The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet," he says.
"This is undeniably a Scottish issue and the Scottish Government must not be allowed to duck it. Over to you, Alex. You know it’s the right thing to do."
[BBC Two Newsnight Scotland's programme on this issue can be viewed here.]
'New clues' on Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an article that has just appeared on the website of the Tewkesbury Admag, which circulates in the Cotswold region of England. It reads as follows:]
The Cotswold father of a Lockerbie victim has just returned from Libya with the promise of new evidence from the man convicted of his daughter’s murder.
The retired GP is the father of Flora who died on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 on the eve of her 24th birthday.
Dr Swire, who lives in Chipping Campden, was invited by Abdel Baset al-Magrahi via the Libyan ambassador in London, to visit him in Libya’s capital city Tripoli.
Dr Swire said al-Magrahi wanted to explain personally about abandoning his second appeal, and to tell the GP that if anything happened to him all the evidence from al-Magrahi’s own lawyers would be made available to him, Dr Swire said: “He is very ill but in better shape than I expected. When I go to see him I don’t feel that I am going to see my daughter’s murderer because I am satisfied he didn’t do it.
“We both have a common goal which is the re-examiniation of the evidence which led to the verdict which we believe was reached under political pressure.”
He added: “I am determined that my daughter’s murder should not be trussed up in a tissue of lies.”
Dr Swire explained that at the time of the trial 10 years ago there was so much conflicting evidence.
He said: “I was in the Netherlands throughout the trial with the object of seeing my daughter’s murderers brought to justice but the more I listened to the evidence the more I was convinced al-Magrahi didn’t do it.”
He believes that the American families of the victims were groomed to believe the verdict before it was reached.
His fears about the case were supported In 2007 when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission found six grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice may have taken place and granted al-Megrahi the right to a second appeal but he abandoned that when he was released last year on health grounds.
Dr Swire, aged 74, is hopeful that the campaign will be taken over by a younger man, the QC and professor of Scottish law, Robert Black from Edinburgh University.
Throughout the past 10 years Dr Swire has been interviewed by journalists from all over the world.
Last month a sell-out drama about the Lockerbie disaster and Dr Swire’s subsequent campaign was staged at the Edinburgh Festival and a film, and a possible debate in the House of Lords could be on the cards.
The Cotswold father of a Lockerbie victim has just returned from Libya with the promise of new evidence from the man convicted of his daughter’s murder.
The retired GP is the father of Flora who died on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 on the eve of her 24th birthday.
Dr Swire, who lives in Chipping Campden, was invited by Abdel Baset al-Magrahi via the Libyan ambassador in London, to visit him in Libya’s capital city Tripoli.
Dr Swire said al-Magrahi wanted to explain personally about abandoning his second appeal, and to tell the GP that if anything happened to him all the evidence from al-Magrahi’s own lawyers would be made available to him, Dr Swire said: “He is very ill but in better shape than I expected. When I go to see him I don’t feel that I am going to see my daughter’s murderer because I am satisfied he didn’t do it.
“We both have a common goal which is the re-examiniation of the evidence which led to the verdict which we believe was reached under political pressure.”
He added: “I am determined that my daughter’s murder should not be trussed up in a tissue of lies.”
Dr Swire explained that at the time of the trial 10 years ago there was so much conflicting evidence.
He said: “I was in the Netherlands throughout the trial with the object of seeing my daughter’s murderers brought to justice but the more I listened to the evidence the more I was convinced al-Magrahi didn’t do it.”
He believes that the American families of the victims were groomed to believe the verdict before it was reached.
His fears about the case were supported In 2007 when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission found six grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice may have taken place and granted al-Megrahi the right to a second appeal but he abandoned that when he was released last year on health grounds.
Dr Swire, aged 74, is hopeful that the campaign will be taken over by a younger man, the QC and professor of Scottish law, Robert Black from Edinburgh University.
Throughout the past 10 years Dr Swire has been interviewed by journalists from all over the world.
Last month a sell-out drama about the Lockerbie disaster and Dr Swire’s subsequent campaign was staged at the Edinburgh Festival and a film, and a possible debate in the House of Lords could be on the cards.
Tuesday, 21 September 2010
Megrahi "a very sick man"
Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi is "a very sick man," but there is no way to tell how long he will live, according to the father of one of the people who died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terror attack, saw al-Megrahi a week ago in Libya, he said Tuesday.
He also criticized U.S. senators who tried to hold hearings this summer into questions surrounding the release of al-Megrahi.
He said he had written to them to say it was more important to let Scottish legal proceedings run their course, since a review commission had found possible miscarriages of justice in the case.
"They didn't want to know about that," he said of the senators, saying they had not replied to his letter.
The Scottish government released al-Megrahi from prison just over a year ago on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months.
Swire, who does not believe that al-Megrahi is guilty, defended the decision.
"At three months, just over half [of people with his cancer] would be dead," Swire said.
But after three months, mortality rates level off, and there is no way to predict how long cancer sufferers will live, said Swire, a retired general practicioner.
"He can walk a few steps," Swire said of al-Megrahi.
He did not ask al-Megrahi or his doctors about the Libyan's medical condition out of respect for his privacy, he said.
But he said the fullness of his face suggested that he was on steroids to slow the cancer.
Al-Megrahi was appealing his conviction when he was freed on compassionate grounds in August 2009 and then dropped the appeal.
Swire thinks al-Megrahi feels guilty about having withdrawn his appeal, since it leaves him with no way to clear his name or for those -- like Swire -- who think he is innocent to have the case reviewed.
But al-Megrahi's death could change the legal playing field, Swire speculated.
"If he were to die, the the situation would change," and Swire might be able to get the case reopened, he said.
He believes that al-Megrahi "would see to it that we would be provided with all the information his defense team has assembled," he said, adding that the Libyan had not explicitly told him that.
Swire is in the minority among victims' families in thinking al-Megrahi is innocent.
American officials blasted al-Megrahi's release at the time and on the first anniversary.
[From a report just published on the CNN website, based on a televised interview with Dr Swire.]
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terror attack, saw al-Megrahi a week ago in Libya, he said Tuesday.
He also criticized U.S. senators who tried to hold hearings this summer into questions surrounding the release of al-Megrahi.
He said he had written to them to say it was more important to let Scottish legal proceedings run their course, since a review commission had found possible miscarriages of justice in the case.
"They didn't want to know about that," he said of the senators, saying they had not replied to his letter.
The Scottish government released al-Megrahi from prison just over a year ago on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months.
Swire, who does not believe that al-Megrahi is guilty, defended the decision.
"At three months, just over half [of people with his cancer] would be dead," Swire said.
But after three months, mortality rates level off, and there is no way to predict how long cancer sufferers will live, said Swire, a retired general practicioner.
"He can walk a few steps," Swire said of al-Megrahi.
He did not ask al-Megrahi or his doctors about the Libyan's medical condition out of respect for his privacy, he said.
But he said the fullness of his face suggested that he was on steroids to slow the cancer.
Al-Megrahi was appealing his conviction when he was freed on compassionate grounds in August 2009 and then dropped the appeal.
Swire thinks al-Megrahi feels guilty about having withdrawn his appeal, since it leaves him with no way to clear his name or for those -- like Swire -- who think he is innocent to have the case reviewed.
But al-Megrahi's death could change the legal playing field, Swire speculated.
"If he were to die, the the situation would change," and Swire might be able to get the case reopened, he said.
He believes that al-Megrahi "would see to it that we would be provided with all the information his defense team has assembled," he said, adding that the Libyan had not explicitly told him that.
Swire is in the minority among victims' families in thinking al-Megrahi is innocent.
American officials blasted al-Megrahi's release at the time and on the first anniversary.
[From a report just published on the CNN website, based on a televised interview with Dr Swire.]
Most appealing
[This is the headline over a long post by Steven Raeburn on his editor's blog on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]
Jim Swire’s announcement that he and the UK families of Pan Am 103 plan to resurrect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi’s appeal takes this tortured case into uncharted legal territory. Or I should say, takes it further into the uncharted legal territory that was first ploughed into when the model for a trial under Scots law held in Holland was first proposed as a solution to break the legal deadlock by Robert Black QC. Anything goes in this exceptional case. But whilst the jungle just got thicker, the path has perhaps become a little clearer.
It is a great strength that Scots law is so adaptable, but a source of serious concern if that adaptability is perverted to suit twisted political ends, rather than the interests of justice, as has so often been the case in this sorry, embarrassing, shameful, manufactured affair.
The proposal to pick up the case where Megrahi dropped it is a bold move, and a necessary one. Scots law is internationally derided for its Banana Republic ability to be so bent by political expediency as things currently stand. The Euro-phobic, and in particular Islamaphobic stance of UK mainstream media perhaps blinds many to the tone of the reporting of this case in jurisdictions other than our own, where for example the UN Observer’s remarks that the conduct of Megrahi’s dropped appeal “bore the hallmarks of an intelligence operation” were scarcely, if at all reported. Concluding the halted legal proceedings may be more than cathartic. It may be legally therapeutic.
The dropped appeal was only haltingly entered into after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission grudgingly, almost under duress, acknowledged that a staringly obvious miscarriage of justice may have occurred after three years of deliberations, during which their pledged timescale for reporting continually slipped by six-monthly or three-monthly increments. That gritted teeth conclusion -unlike its other, more direct, matter of fact summaries in almost all its other reviewed cases- took pains to rubbish the cumulative investigative work of the preceding 19 years that had been undertaken with skill, vigour and thoroughness of some of the UK’s finest journalists, work that had led to questions on the floor of Parliament, all of which it casually dismissed with cold and troubling assurance. In its place it posited a bare handful of troubling aspects of the conviction, centred around the identification of Megrahi. Virtually all else was ignored. An appeal, within narrow parameters only, commenced. The conviction, on a shaky nail from the outset, seemed likely to fall even with only this mild nudge.
There is precedent for an appeal to be continued in Scotland by relatives of the convicted person if he has died. Two such cases have been permitted in Scottish courts in the last ten years. What is not so certain is whether this can be done by Swire and the families whilst Megrahi lives after having dropped it himself, or if they can pick it up in the inevitable event of his death, if Megrahi‘s own family don‘t.
It is worthwhile reporting professor Robert Black QC at length here, on this very point.
"The legislation which set up the SCCRC envisages applications being made by persons other than the convicted person himself,” he says.
“The Commission may refer a case to the High Court if they believe (a) that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. Condition (a) is clearly satisfied: the SCCRC so decided in Mr Megrahi's own application. But what about condition (b)? Would the Commission regard it as in the interests of justice to refer a case back to the High Court where the convicted person himself had commenced an appeal on a SCCRC reference and then chosen to abandon it? The answer might depend on the precise circumstances in which the appellant came to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's terminal illness; the fact that prisoner transfer was not open while the appeal was ongoing; and the fact that Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that Kenny MacAskill would ultimately opt for compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer, would be relevant factors.
“An appeal in Scotland would require (a) a further reference back to the High Court of Justiciary by the SCCRC; and (b) the High Court to recognise the appellant (assuming that Mr Megrahi himself is no longer with us) as having a legitimate interest to pursue it. A spouse or close relative of Megrahi would qualify. But what of the spouse or close relative of a Lockerbie victim? This is entirely untrodden legal ground.”
That would appear to indicate that not only could the specific terms of Megrahi’s appeal - an appeal broken up and drawn out under a wicked timetable to an interminable length, almost as though intended to outlast the man himself - be resurrected, but new grounds that affected the case subsequent to the SCCRC referral could also be considered. And here there are rich pickings indeed.
“A factor which I think can be strongly argued to be important, is the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. This has suffered badly both at home and abroad because of widespread doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi,” Black says.
“It is in the interests of justice and of restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and its administration that these doubts be addressed. This can perhaps best be done by allowing the Criminal Appeal Court to consider the SCCRC's reasons for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in a fresh appeal challenging the original verdict.”
So yes, apparently the court could consider the case, as well as the merits of the original conviction, and the subsequent issues arising since the SCCRC referral in 2007. And here there is more. Much more. (...)
Lord Maclean told me that he and his fellow judges reached correct verdicts in this case on the basis of the evidence presented to them. That is a careful and interesting qualification. Megrahi originally lodged a special defence incriminating Mohamed Abu Talb, then a prisoner in Sweden on unrelated charges, but this defence was dropped, and only three from the hundred of named defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, in what can only be described as a token gesture of defence.
With no defence offered, even then, their Lordships were able to comfortably acquit co-accused Fhimah, and the remaining verdict convicting Megrahi is, putting it kindly, attenuated in the extreme. You should read it, if you haven’t already. It is barely logical, and is very far from a linear narration of a case proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What seems unavoidable is the conclusion that the UK, US and Libyan governments puppeteered the Zeist proceedings and current aftermath. It couldn‘t be concealed from the UN Observers. Scots law has been broken to accommodate the desired conclusions, and our own civil service are evidently the principal architects of the key local decision making. A recent letter from Tam Dalyell in the Scotsman read in part that the decision to release Mr Megrahi “had everything to do with avoiding an appeal which would have revealed the delaying and disgraceful behaviour of the Crown Office over 21 years, the "inexplicable" (the UN observer's word) decision by the judges at Zeist and the shortcomings in Mr Megrahi's original defence, not to mention the involvement of the American government in scapegoating Libya: The Americans should now be told that the motive for Mr Megrahi's release was the avoidance of the humiliation of Scottish justice in the eyes of the world.”
If that in itself does not meet the required condition that the matter must be sufficiently in the interests of justice to allow the Scottish Court to hear the families' pursuit of Megrahi’s appeal and to let justice run its course, then seriously, what is?
[Dr Swire's Newsnight Scotland interview can be seen here.]
Jim Swire’s announcement that he and the UK families of Pan Am 103 plan to resurrect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi’s appeal takes this tortured case into uncharted legal territory. Or I should say, takes it further into the uncharted legal territory that was first ploughed into when the model for a trial under Scots law held in Holland was first proposed as a solution to break the legal deadlock by Robert Black QC. Anything goes in this exceptional case. But whilst the jungle just got thicker, the path has perhaps become a little clearer.
It is a great strength that Scots law is so adaptable, but a source of serious concern if that adaptability is perverted to suit twisted political ends, rather than the interests of justice, as has so often been the case in this sorry, embarrassing, shameful, manufactured affair.
The proposal to pick up the case where Megrahi dropped it is a bold move, and a necessary one. Scots law is internationally derided for its Banana Republic ability to be so bent by political expediency as things currently stand. The Euro-phobic, and in particular Islamaphobic stance of UK mainstream media perhaps blinds many to the tone of the reporting of this case in jurisdictions other than our own, where for example the UN Observer’s remarks that the conduct of Megrahi’s dropped appeal “bore the hallmarks of an intelligence operation” were scarcely, if at all reported. Concluding the halted legal proceedings may be more than cathartic. It may be legally therapeutic.
The dropped appeal was only haltingly entered into after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission grudgingly, almost under duress, acknowledged that a staringly obvious miscarriage of justice may have occurred after three years of deliberations, during which their pledged timescale for reporting continually slipped by six-monthly or three-monthly increments. That gritted teeth conclusion -unlike its other, more direct, matter of fact summaries in almost all its other reviewed cases- took pains to rubbish the cumulative investigative work of the preceding 19 years that had been undertaken with skill, vigour and thoroughness of some of the UK’s finest journalists, work that had led to questions on the floor of Parliament, all of which it casually dismissed with cold and troubling assurance. In its place it posited a bare handful of troubling aspects of the conviction, centred around the identification of Megrahi. Virtually all else was ignored. An appeal, within narrow parameters only, commenced. The conviction, on a shaky nail from the outset, seemed likely to fall even with only this mild nudge.
There is precedent for an appeal to be continued in Scotland by relatives of the convicted person if he has died. Two such cases have been permitted in Scottish courts in the last ten years. What is not so certain is whether this can be done by Swire and the families whilst Megrahi lives after having dropped it himself, or if they can pick it up in the inevitable event of his death, if Megrahi‘s own family don‘t.
It is worthwhile reporting professor Robert Black QC at length here, on this very point.
"The legislation which set up the SCCRC envisages applications being made by persons other than the convicted person himself,” he says.
“The Commission may refer a case to the High Court if they believe (a) that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. Condition (a) is clearly satisfied: the SCCRC so decided in Mr Megrahi's own application. But what about condition (b)? Would the Commission regard it as in the interests of justice to refer a case back to the High Court where the convicted person himself had commenced an appeal on a SCCRC reference and then chosen to abandon it? The answer might depend on the precise circumstances in which the appellant came to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's terminal illness; the fact that prisoner transfer was not open while the appeal was ongoing; and the fact that Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that Kenny MacAskill would ultimately opt for compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer, would be relevant factors.
“An appeal in Scotland would require (a) a further reference back to the High Court of Justiciary by the SCCRC; and (b) the High Court to recognise the appellant (assuming that Mr Megrahi himself is no longer with us) as having a legitimate interest to pursue it. A spouse or close relative of Megrahi would qualify. But what of the spouse or close relative of a Lockerbie victim? This is entirely untrodden legal ground.”
That would appear to indicate that not only could the specific terms of Megrahi’s appeal - an appeal broken up and drawn out under a wicked timetable to an interminable length, almost as though intended to outlast the man himself - be resurrected, but new grounds that affected the case subsequent to the SCCRC referral could also be considered. And here there are rich pickings indeed.
“A factor which I think can be strongly argued to be important, is the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. This has suffered badly both at home and abroad because of widespread doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi,” Black says.
“It is in the interests of justice and of restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and its administration that these doubts be addressed. This can perhaps best be done by allowing the Criminal Appeal Court to consider the SCCRC's reasons for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in a fresh appeal challenging the original verdict.”
So yes, apparently the court could consider the case, as well as the merits of the original conviction, and the subsequent issues arising since the SCCRC referral in 2007. And here there is more. Much more. (...)
Lord Maclean told me that he and his fellow judges reached correct verdicts in this case on the basis of the evidence presented to them. That is a careful and interesting qualification. Megrahi originally lodged a special defence incriminating Mohamed Abu Talb, then a prisoner in Sweden on unrelated charges, but this defence was dropped, and only three from the hundred of named defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, in what can only be described as a token gesture of defence.
With no defence offered, even then, their Lordships were able to comfortably acquit co-accused Fhimah, and the remaining verdict convicting Megrahi is, putting it kindly, attenuated in the extreme. You should read it, if you haven’t already. It is barely logical, and is very far from a linear narration of a case proven beyond reasonable doubt.
What seems unavoidable is the conclusion that the UK, US and Libyan governments puppeteered the Zeist proceedings and current aftermath. It couldn‘t be concealed from the UN Observers. Scots law has been broken to accommodate the desired conclusions, and our own civil service are evidently the principal architects of the key local decision making. A recent letter from Tam Dalyell in the Scotsman read in part that the decision to release Mr Megrahi “had everything to do with avoiding an appeal which would have revealed the delaying and disgraceful behaviour of the Crown Office over 21 years, the "inexplicable" (the UN observer's word) decision by the judges at Zeist and the shortcomings in Mr Megrahi's original defence, not to mention the involvement of the American government in scapegoating Libya: The Americans should now be told that the motive for Mr Megrahi's release was the avoidance of the humiliation of Scottish justice in the eyes of the world.”
If that in itself does not meet the required condition that the matter must be sufficiently in the interests of justice to allow the Scottish Court to hear the families' pursuit of Megrahi’s appeal and to let justice run its course, then seriously, what is?
[Dr Swire's Newsnight Scotland interview can be seen here.]
Monday, 20 September 2010
Victim's father visits Megrahi in hospital
[The report in today's edition of The Scotsman on Dr Jim Swire's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi reads in part:]
The father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in Libya and said he looked better than he expected.
Dr Jim Swire was invited to meet the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the two men spent about an hour together in Megrahi's hospital ward in Tripoli on Tuesday, it emerged yesterday. (...)
Dr Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims of the atrocity, has long believed Megrahi is innocent and has spearheaded a campaign for a full inquiry into the atrocity. It was the first time the two men had met since Dr Swire visited him in prison in Scotland in December 2008.
He said: "It was a man-to-man confidential meeting. We have something in common, in that he wants to clear his name and I want to see the verdict re-examined under Scots law, so we have a common aim to overturn the verdict.
"I was very relieved to see him as well as he was. He is a very sick man, but he can get out of bed and walk, though not very far.
"I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family, his community and his country.
"These are a huge relief to the body in fighting cancer, because your immune system depends very heavily on how much stress you are under. Being in a foreign prison cell is about as stressful as it can be."
Megrahi was jailed for life for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which exploded above Lockerbie.
He was given a fresh chance to clear his name after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. (...)
Dr Swire, 74, who lives in Gloucestershire, said he would meet Megrahi again if invited.
He said: "When I go to see him … I don't feel I'm going to see my daughter's murderer. I am satisfied he didn't do it."
It also emerged yesterday that Dr Swire is set to lead an appeal to clear Megrahi's name.
He said he had received legal advice that there was no legal bar to victims' relatives asking for an appeal following the convicted bomber's death.
[It is true that third parties -- not just the convicted person himself -- can make an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and that more than one application can be made in respect of the same case. In Megrahi's case, the Commission has already decided that there may have been a miscarriage of justice, so that is not a significant hurdle. What is problematic is the requirement that a reference-back be "in the interests of justice". Some of the factors that would have to be considered there are the precise circumstances in which he himself abandoned his appeal and the attitude of his family if he himself is no longer alive. A factor which I think can be strongly argued to be important, is the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. This has suffered badly both at home and abroad because of widespread doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi. It is in the interests of justice and of restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and its administration that these doubts be addressed. This can perhaps best be done by allowing the Criminal Appeal Court to consider the SCCRC's reasons for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in a fresh appeal challenging the original verdict.
The report in The Times on Dr Swire's meeting can be read here; that on the BBC News website here; and that in the Daily Record here.]
The father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in Libya and said he looked better than he expected.
Dr Jim Swire was invited to meet the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the two men spent about an hour together in Megrahi's hospital ward in Tripoli on Tuesday, it emerged yesterday. (...)
Dr Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims of the atrocity, has long believed Megrahi is innocent and has spearheaded a campaign for a full inquiry into the atrocity. It was the first time the two men had met since Dr Swire visited him in prison in Scotland in December 2008.
He said: "It was a man-to-man confidential meeting. We have something in common, in that he wants to clear his name and I want to see the verdict re-examined under Scots law, so we have a common aim to overturn the verdict.
"I was very relieved to see him as well as he was. He is a very sick man, but he can get out of bed and walk, though not very far.
"I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family, his community and his country.
"These are a huge relief to the body in fighting cancer, because your immune system depends very heavily on how much stress you are under. Being in a foreign prison cell is about as stressful as it can be."
Megrahi was jailed for life for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which exploded above Lockerbie.
He was given a fresh chance to clear his name after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. (...)
Dr Swire, 74, who lives in Gloucestershire, said he would meet Megrahi again if invited.
He said: "When I go to see him … I don't feel I'm going to see my daughter's murderer. I am satisfied he didn't do it."
It also emerged yesterday that Dr Swire is set to lead an appeal to clear Megrahi's name.
He said he had received legal advice that there was no legal bar to victims' relatives asking for an appeal following the convicted bomber's death.
[It is true that third parties -- not just the convicted person himself -- can make an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and that more than one application can be made in respect of the same case. In Megrahi's case, the Commission has already decided that there may have been a miscarriage of justice, so that is not a significant hurdle. What is problematic is the requirement that a reference-back be "in the interests of justice". Some of the factors that would have to be considered there are the precise circumstances in which he himself abandoned his appeal and the attitude of his family if he himself is no longer alive. A factor which I think can be strongly argued to be important, is the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. This has suffered badly both at home and abroad because of widespread doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi. It is in the interests of justice and of restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and its administration that these doubts be addressed. This can perhaps best be done by allowing the Criminal Appeal Court to consider the SCCRC's reasons for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in a fresh appeal challenging the original verdict.
The report in The Times on Dr Swire's meeting can be read here; that on the BBC News website here; and that in the Daily Record here.]
Sunday, 19 September 2010
‘Maltese man betrayed me for money’ – Al-Megrahi
[This is the headline over the longer article in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times mentioned in the preceding post. The article, by the paper's deputy editor Herman Grech, reads as follows:]
Gauci’s evidence was ‘clearly unreliable’
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and a victim’s father have accused a Maltese witness at the centre of the probe of “betraying a fellow human being for money”.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am aircraft, spoke exclusively to The Sunday Times just days after meeting Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted of killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was controversially released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
When asked whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
Twenty-two years on from the bombing, Dr Swire remains convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
“Everything I have heard since has reinforced that view, particularly the Heathrow break-in, knowledge of which was denied to the court and of course hidden from us, until after the verdict had been reached.”
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al-Megrahi had originally placed the unaccompanied bomb on an Air Malta flight.
It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport onto a feeder flight to London and then at Heathrow onto the Pan Am plane flight, PA103, that later exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland 38 minutes after take-off.
Mr Al-Megrahi was said to be a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.
Dr Swire said that evidence from a man who worked at a cafe at the former Luqa airport had claimed that a Scottish detective had suggested he might “refresh his memory” by remembering that if he produced evidence against the Libyan he would be likely to get enough money to allow him to travel abroad.
Both Mr Al-Megrahi and Dr Swire believe there was political interference in the case.
“If there really was direct interference either by those involved in the investigation, or by other arms of intelligence communities to achieve a politically ‘desirable’ verdict, the host nations would hardly welcome an exposure of their collusion to pervert the course of justice, even after 21 years,” Dr Swire said.
Some arguments against the conviction
• Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.
• Claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow fits perfectly with the theory that a Syrian group was behind the bomb which downed the aircraft. Their bombs were known to be stable at ground level, but if put into an aircraft they would always explode between 35 and 40 minutes after take-off, thanks to an internal timer only being triggered by a drop in air pressure. The Lockerbie aircraft flew for 38 minutes before exploding.
• An FBI agent held up in front of US public television cameras a photograph of a timer circuit board through which he claimed to have linked the crime to Libya. Critics said the photograph was of a circuit board which had not been involved in proximity to any explosion. Court evidence later confirmed that the CIA had already been in possession of timers containing such circuit boards.
• A book had claimed that the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) had received $10 million or so from Iran immediately after Lockerbie. The PFLP-GC appears to have acted as a mercenary, or executive in carrying out the wishes of the Iranian Ayatollahs in revenge for the erroneous US downing of an Iranian aircraft.
• There are political reasons why the US had wanted to take the heat off Iran and Syria at the time. The return of US hostages held by Iranian backed groups was still on the agenda at the time.
• A US intelligence team who had been investigating the hostage dispositions in Lebanon were among those on the doomed PA103. Their leader’s bag had been cut open by hand and some of its contents removed before it was returned to the crash site for the Scottish police to find. This interference with the evidence chain was known to the court which placed no emphasis on it.
• The court never ordered the production of the diaries pertaining to a detective involved in the complex forensic investigation into the bombing even though they knew of their existence. These exposed serious backhand dealings and showed that the Maltese witness was interested in the awards being offered by the US ‘Rewards for Justice’ programme provided he gave evidence leading to Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction.
[A second article in the same newspaper headlined ‘Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi remains a sick man’ reads as follows:]
Dr Swire met with Mr Al-Megrahi in Tripoli following a request by the Libyan man himself.
It was the first time the Scottish doctor has met Mr Al-Megrahi since the Libyan’s release. The two had previously met when the convicted bomber was in custody. Mr Al-Megrahi has kept a very low profile since his release, amid media speculation of his health and whereabouts.
Dr Swire was not expansive about the contents of his one-hour conversation with Mr Al-Megrahi, which he considers confidential, but was quick to quash media claims that the Libyan - who was given three months to live when released from a Scottish prison in August 2009 – was not really a dying man.
“Abdelbaset remains a sick man but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family, especially his wife Aisha, the community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving. This is a message of great cheer for all of us men, many of whom will sooner or later be victims of prostate cancer.”
Dr Swire said he decided to make the trip to Tripoli in solidarity with the man who still stands accused in the eyes of the law of killing the Scotsman’s daughter.
“We met as brother members of the human race and seekers of a common goal: the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice.
“Abdelbaset does not want any further dealings with the media, believing he can do no more now that his appeal has been withdrawn.”
Mr Al-Megrahi maintained his innocence and his wish to see the verdict against him overturned, Dr Swire told The Sunday Times.
“That task now falls upon Scotland, and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.”
Gauci’s evidence was ‘clearly unreliable’
The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and a victim’s father have accused a Maltese witness at the centre of the probe of “betraying a fellow human being for money”.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am aircraft, spoke exclusively to The Sunday Times just days after meeting Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted of killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was controversially released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
When asked whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
Twenty-two years on from the bombing, Dr Swire remains convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
“Everything I have heard since has reinforced that view, particularly the Heathrow break-in, knowledge of which was denied to the court and of course hidden from us, until after the verdict had been reached.”
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al-Megrahi had originally placed the unaccompanied bomb on an Air Malta flight.
It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport onto a feeder flight to London and then at Heathrow onto the Pan Am plane flight, PA103, that later exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland 38 minutes after take-off.
Mr Al-Megrahi was said to be a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.
Dr Swire said that evidence from a man who worked at a cafe at the former Luqa airport had claimed that a Scottish detective had suggested he might “refresh his memory” by remembering that if he produced evidence against the Libyan he would be likely to get enough money to allow him to travel abroad.
Both Mr Al-Megrahi and Dr Swire believe there was political interference in the case.
“If there really was direct interference either by those involved in the investigation, or by other arms of intelligence communities to achieve a politically ‘desirable’ verdict, the host nations would hardly welcome an exposure of their collusion to pervert the course of justice, even after 21 years,” Dr Swire said.
Some arguments against the conviction
• Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.
• Claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow fits perfectly with the theory that a Syrian group was behind the bomb which downed the aircraft. Their bombs were known to be stable at ground level, but if put into an aircraft they would always explode between 35 and 40 minutes after take-off, thanks to an internal timer only being triggered by a drop in air pressure. The Lockerbie aircraft flew for 38 minutes before exploding.
• An FBI agent held up in front of US public television cameras a photograph of a timer circuit board through which he claimed to have linked the crime to Libya. Critics said the photograph was of a circuit board which had not been involved in proximity to any explosion. Court evidence later confirmed that the CIA had already been in possession of timers containing such circuit boards.
• A book had claimed that the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) had received $10 million or so from Iran immediately after Lockerbie. The PFLP-GC appears to have acted as a mercenary, or executive in carrying out the wishes of the Iranian Ayatollahs in revenge for the erroneous US downing of an Iranian aircraft.
• There are political reasons why the US had wanted to take the heat off Iran and Syria at the time. The return of US hostages held by Iranian backed groups was still on the agenda at the time.
• A US intelligence team who had been investigating the hostage dispositions in Lebanon were among those on the doomed PA103. Their leader’s bag had been cut open by hand and some of its contents removed before it was returned to the crash site for the Scottish police to find. This interference with the evidence chain was known to the court which placed no emphasis on it.
• The court never ordered the production of the diaries pertaining to a detective involved in the complex forensic investigation into the bombing even though they knew of their existence. These exposed serious backhand dealings and showed that the Maltese witness was interested in the awards being offered by the US ‘Rewards for Justice’ programme provided he gave evidence leading to Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction.
[A second article in the same newspaper headlined ‘Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi remains a sick man’ reads as follows:]
Dr Swire met with Mr Al-Megrahi in Tripoli following a request by the Libyan man himself.
It was the first time the Scottish doctor has met Mr Al-Megrahi since the Libyan’s release. The two had previously met when the convicted bomber was in custody. Mr Al-Megrahi has kept a very low profile since his release, amid media speculation of his health and whereabouts.
Dr Swire was not expansive about the contents of his one-hour conversation with Mr Al-Megrahi, which he considers confidential, but was quick to quash media claims that the Libyan - who was given three months to live when released from a Scottish prison in August 2009 – was not really a dying man.
“Abdelbaset remains a sick man but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family, especially his wife Aisha, the community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving. This is a message of great cheer for all of us men, many of whom will sooner or later be victims of prostate cancer.”
Dr Swire said he decided to make the trip to Tripoli in solidarity with the man who still stands accused in the eyes of the law of killing the Scotsman’s daughter.
“We met as brother members of the human race and seekers of a common goal: the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice.
“Abdelbaset does not want any further dealings with the media, believing he can do no more now that his appeal has been withdrawn.”
Mr Al-Megrahi maintained his innocence and his wish to see the verdict against him overturned, Dr Swire told The Sunday Times.
“That task now falls upon Scotland, and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.”
Lockerbie victim's dad visits man convicted
[This is the headline over a Deutsche Presse-Agentur news agency report on the website of The Seattle Times. It reads in part:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing "remains a sick man" but was in better shape than expected when the father of one of the victims visited him in Tripoli, Libya.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, was on the Pan Am airliner when it was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, held a one-hour meeting with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in Libya on Tuesday, The Sunday Times of Malta reported.
It was the first time that the Scottish doctor had met al-Megrahi since his controversial release from a Scottish prison in August 2009. (...)
Al-Megrahi has kept a low profile since his release, amid media speculation about his health and whereabouts.
Swire, who has always maintained the Libyan was wrongly convicted of the crime that killed 270 people, was quick to quash media claims that the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" was not really a dying man.
"Abdel Baset remains a sick man, but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family and community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving," Swire, 74, told Malta's main newspaper.
He said he decided to visit Tripoli in solidarity with the Libyan, who has maintained his innocence and wants the verdict against him overturned.
[There is a brief report on the website of The Sunday Times of Malta. A longer report will probably appear there later today. The brief report, headlined "Lockerbie bomber claims he was 'betrayed' by Maltese man" reads in part:]
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and controversially released last year, is claiming that a Maltese witness at his trial “betrayed a fellow human being for money”.
The claim was made to Jim Swire, a Scottish doctor who last week visited Al Megrahi in Tripoli. Dr Swire lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. (...)
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
Asked by The Sunday Times whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation.
Dr Swire said he was convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing "remains a sick man" but was in better shape than expected when the father of one of the victims visited him in Tripoli, Libya.
Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, was on the Pan Am airliner when it was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, held a one-hour meeting with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in Libya on Tuesday, The Sunday Times of Malta reported.
It was the first time that the Scottish doctor had met al-Megrahi since his controversial release from a Scottish prison in August 2009. (...)
Al-Megrahi has kept a low profile since his release, amid media speculation about his health and whereabouts.
Swire, who has always maintained the Libyan was wrongly convicted of the crime that killed 270 people, was quick to quash media claims that the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" was not really a dying man.
"Abdel Baset remains a sick man, but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family and community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving," Swire, 74, told Malta's main newspaper.
He said he decided to visit Tripoli in solidarity with the Libyan, who has maintained his innocence and wants the verdict against him overturned.
[There is a brief report on the website of The Sunday Times of Malta. A longer report will probably appear there later today. The brief report, headlined "Lockerbie bomber claims he was 'betrayed' by Maltese man" reads in part:]
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and controversially released last year, is claiming that a Maltese witness at his trial “betrayed a fellow human being for money”.
The claim was made to Jim Swire, a Scottish doctor who last week visited Al Megrahi in Tripoli. Dr Swire lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. (...)
The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.
Asked by The Sunday Times whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”
Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation.
Dr Swire said he was convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.
Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.
Friday, 17 September 2010
BBC Radio Four's The Report on Megrahi case
The programme was broadcast yesterday evening. It can be listened to here. Perhaps inevitably, there was far too much on the release issue. But some of the concerns about the conviction were given an airing. Regrettably, Frank Duggan, president of the US relatives group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc was allowed to assert unchallenged that eight Scottish judges had accepted the evidence at the trial as justifying Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction. Mr Duggan well knows (as do the BBC programme makers, because I told them) the true position is as follows:
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."
Thursday, 16 September 2010
US team to discuss Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report just issued by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
MacAskill set to face Lockerbie FBI chief
This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. Had it been true, it would have been quite a story. The Director of the FBI Robert S Mueller III has form in relation to Lockerbie: see eg here and here and here and here.
What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.
This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:
"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."
What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.
This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:
"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Lord MacLean on Lockerbie
[Accompanying its article on the report of the inquiry into the murder of Loyalist Billy Wright by Irish National Liberation Army prisoners at the Maze Prison in 1997, The Scotsman runs a brief profile of the retired judge, Lord MacLean, who chaired the inquiry. It reads in part:]
The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.
Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]
An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."
The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.
Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]
An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Justice officials to meet US senate team over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
Monday, 13 September 2010
First Minister's letter to US Senators
[What follows is the text of the First Minister's most recent letter to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand and Schumer.]
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)