Sunday, 12 February 2012

McLetchie makes it political and insults the Lockerbie dead

[This is the headline over an item posted today on Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph’s blog Lockerbie Truth. It reads as follows:]

Scottish Conservatives justice spokesman David McLetchie MSP has become the front-man for those who wish to conceal the truth about the Lockerbie trial. In doing so the Scottish Conservatives have politicised the Lockerbie disaster.

Is Mr McLetchie really aware that he is defending the following? -

1. Secret offers of huge rewards to the prosecution's main witnesses Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci and CIA double agent Majid Giaka were made throughout the two year police investigation. The records of these offers were concealed from the defence and judges by the combined actions of senior policemen, Crown officials, and members of the FBI.

2. Many of these policemen and FBI officers are named in the SCCRC report. 

3. The importance of keeping these offers secret was made clear in a memo dated 15th May 2007 written by DI Dalgliesh (Dalgliesh now, apparently, heads the Lockerbie police team).  In the memo Dalgliesh tells his colleagues of the danger of the information becoming public: "[there is] a real danger that if [the] SCCRC’s statement of reasons is leaked to the media, Anthony Gauci could be portrayed as having given flawed evidence for financial reward…”

4.  Flawed evidence for financial reward is exactly what Gauci did give.  

5.  At the height of the Lockerbie police enquiries, a new witness appeared.  David Wright gave a statement to the Dumfries and Galloway police suggesting that Gauci had been totally confused about the date of purchase of clothes, remnants of which had been found at Lockerbie. If Wright was correct, then Al-Megrahi could not have been the purchaser, since he was not in Malta when Wright had witnessed the actual purchase. 

6. If [Megrahi] was not the purchaser, then the main plank of the prosecution case would evaporate.  Al-Megrahi would most probably have walked free from the court. 

7.  The police quietly filed Wright's statement, and his existence was concealed from the Lockerbie trial. Both the investigating detectives and Crown lawyers knew of his existence but kept the information from the trial judges and defence.

8.  Wright and his statement were discovered only during a three-year inquiry by officers of the SCCRC.  He swore an affidavit reaffirming his original claims.  His evidence forms part of the so-far unpublished SCCRC report. 

9.  The existence of Wright and his statement and affidavit are another reason that the Scottish police, Crown office, and certain members of the FBI are afraid of publication of the SCCRC's report. 

10.  There were other important matters concealed from the judges and the defence, and we will comment on these at an appropriate time. 

This latest merging of attempts at concealment by the police and Crown office with the Scottish Conservative party is an insult to the dead of Lockerbie.


  1. I do despair when so-called Unionists like McLetchie discredit themselves and Unionism with such foolish remarks.

    Even if he does think the Lockerbie Case should be dropped and forgotten, there is no political benefit in casting the Scottish Conservatives so explicitly against resolving this issue.

    Particularly when the Scottish and British Government’s need no encouragement in obstructing the truth and when his arguments are so transparently dishonest.

    However, ironically his remarks may have the opposite effect to those intended and propel Lockerbie centre stage.

    This is because McLetchie has turned Lockerbie into a party political issue which the JfM campaign could turn into a Scottish litmus test, in the forthcoming referendum debate.

  2. The Committee Hearing the previous week included even more offensive comments from McLetchie. Having (kind of) satisfied himself that a future appeal would never happen he quipped, "So what is the point of all this then?" Clearly the deaths of nearly 300 people and the doubts over the conviction of Megrahi are irrelevant to him. The hearing is on the SG website.