The First Minister
First minister Alex Salmond has just issued this statement. It appears
that he is still desperately clinging to the fiction that Abdelbaset’s
conviction is safe. Maybe someone should tell him that appeals are not
adjudicated according to the number of grounds the SCCRC accepted and rejected.
[RB: Maybe someone should also draw his attention to Report fails to address crucial evidence.]
I
welcome the publication in full of this report, which is something that the
Scottish Government has been doing everything in our powers to facilitate.
While the report shows that there were six
grounds on which it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred, it
also rejected 45 of the 48 grounds submitted by Megrahi, and in particular it
upheld the forensic basis of the case leading to Malta and to Libyan
involvement.
The Crown Office
The
Crown Office has today issued the following statement in response to the Sunday
Herald’s publication of the SCCRC report. It features in a BBC
online article. In my view the statement is inaccurate and
misleading. My comments are in normal typeface.
The commission was working to facilitate the
publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it
taking account of their human rights (articles two and eight) and issues of
confidentiality. The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today
does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public
authorities by law … [The Crown Office has] become very concerned at the drip
feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the statement of
reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the
contents out of context.
Publication was authorised by Abdelbaset, who is the person
whose human rights are most affected by publication. Under Section 32 of the
Data Protection Act, the media can publish in the public interest. The report
does not required any sensationalising; it is sensational.
Persons referred to in the statement of
reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to
the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored. Further allegations
of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of
individuals for which the commission found no evidence. This is also to be
deplored. In fact the commission found no basis for concluding that
evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic
scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government
agencies …
This gives the impression that Megrahi: You are my jury and the previous reports in the Herald
made unsubstantiated allegations against certain individuals and failed to
report that the commission found no evidence that evidence was fabricated. In
fact they did no such thing and were careful to report the commission’s
findings on these matters.
… [It is] not appropriate or helpful to
seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence
is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State
sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. Investigations will
continue to bring the others involved in the murder of 270 persons to justice.
As a result the Crown will be making no further comment on the evidence in the
case and on the statement of reasons.
It
is entirely appropriate that the weaknesses in Abdelbaset’s conviction and the
conduct of the Crown be explored in the media and it is ludicrous to suggest
otherwise.
[The full text of the Crown Office press release reads as follows:]
LOCKERBIE STATEMENT OF REASONS
The Crown notes the publication today by the Sunday Herald of the Statement of Reasons of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in the case against Megrahi.
The Commission was working to facilitate the publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it taking account of their human rights [articles 2 and 8] and issues of confidentiality. The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public authorities by law.
We have become very concerned at the drip feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the Statement of Reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the contents out of context.
Persons referred to in the Statement of Reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored. Further allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the Commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored. In fact the Commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies.
Other matters of significance are:
1. The SCCRC found nothing to undermine the trial court’s conclusions about the timer fragment, namely that it was part of a timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence services.
2. The SCCRC report confirms that Tony Gauci was paid a reward by US authorities only after the first appeal.
3. No inducements or promises of reward were made by US and Scottish Law enforcement prior to his evidence being given.
4. At no stage was he offered any inducement or reward by Scottish authorities who acted with complete propriety throughout the case
5. The SCCRC recognised that Tony Gauci was not motivated by money and that he had allegedly been made an offer to go to Tripoli and be rewarded “by Libyan Government officials”
With regard to the differing accounts by Megrahi the Commission noted that:
i. There were inconsistencies and differences in account between his statements to an investigative journalist, his defence team and the SCCRC in matters of significance.
ii. He had “personal relationships” with various members of the Libyan intelligence services, including Senussi and accepted that he had been seconded to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) and that Said Rashid was his superior in the JSO.
iii. Senussi was involved in his secondment to Libyan intelligence services (JSO).
iv. He had travelled with a Colonel in the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) on a false passport in 1987
v. Megrahi gave the Commission conflicting accounts of his connection to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO)
vi. Megrahi confirmed he had knowledge of a man in Spain who was assassinated because he was allegedly an American spy
vii. Megrahi has given a number of different explanations to his lawyers and the Commission about his presence in Malta and use of a false passport on 21 December 1988
viii. The SCCRC believed “there was a real risk that the trial court would have viewed his explanations … as weak or unconvincing” “In particular, the Commission notes the unsatisfactory nature of aspects of their (Megrahi and Fhimah) explanations and the various contradictions which are apparent both within and between their accounts. Although it is possible there are innocent reasons for these deficiencies, they do lead the Commission to have reservations about the credibility and reliability of both as witnesses.”
The commission's role is to conduct an investigation and determine whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice. It does not follow that there was a miscarriage of justice, only the Appeal Court can decide that. It should be noted that not all referrals by the SCCRC result in convictions being overturned; less than half of convictions referred to the Appeal are overturned.
In preparing for Megrahi’s second appeal [which followed the Commission's report] the Crown had considered all the information in the Statement of Reasons and had every confidence in successfully defending the conviction in the Appeal Court for a second time. Although it is entirely a matter for the Commission if the case is referred again to the Appeal court the Crown will defend the conviction.
It is not appropriate or helpful to seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone.
Investigations will continue to bring the others involved in the murder of 270 persons to justice.
As a result the Crown will be making no further comment on the evidence in the case and on the Statement of Reasons.
[John Ashton's response to each of the points raised in the Crown Office press release can be read here.]
[The full text of the Crown Office press release reads as follows:]
The Crown notes the publication today by the Sunday Herald of the Statement of Reasons of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in the case against Megrahi.
The Commission was working to facilitate the publication with appropriate protection for all of the persons named in it taking account of their human rights [articles 2 and 8] and issues of confidentiality. The unauthorised publication by the Sunday Herald today does not deal with any of these issues which rightly constrain all public authorities by law.
We have become very concerned at the drip feeding of selective leaks and partial reporting from parts of the Statement of Reasons over the last few weeks in an attempt to sensationalise aspects of the contents out of context.
Persons referred to in the Statement of Reasons have been asked to respond to these reports without having access to the statement of reasons and this is to be deplored. Further allegations of serious misconduct have been made in the media against a number of individuals for which the Commission found no evidence. This is also to be deplored. In fact the Commission found no basis for concluding that evidence in the case was fabricated by the police, the Crown, forensic scientists or any other representatives of official bodies or government agencies.
Other matters of significance are:
1. The SCCRC found nothing to undermine the trial court’s conclusions about the timer fragment, namely that it was part of a timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence services.
2. The SCCRC report confirms that Tony Gauci was paid a reward by US authorities only after the first appeal.
3. No inducements or promises of reward were made by US and Scottish Law enforcement prior to his evidence being given.
4. At no stage was he offered any inducement or reward by Scottish authorities who acted with complete propriety throughout the case
5. The SCCRC recognised that Tony Gauci was not motivated by money and that he had allegedly been made an offer to go to Tripoli and be rewarded “by Libyan Government officials”
With regard to the differing accounts by Megrahi the Commission noted that:
i. There were inconsistencies and differences in account between his statements to an investigative journalist, his defence team and the SCCRC in matters of significance.
ii. He had “personal relationships” with various members of the Libyan intelligence services, including Senussi and accepted that he had been seconded to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) and that Said Rashid was his superior in the JSO.
iii. Senussi was involved in his secondment to Libyan intelligence services (JSO).
iv. He had travelled with a Colonel in the Libyan intelligence services (JSO) on a false passport in 1987
v. Megrahi gave the Commission conflicting accounts of his connection to the Libyan intelligence services (JSO)
vi. Megrahi confirmed he had knowledge of a man in Spain who was assassinated because he was allegedly an American spy
vii. Megrahi has given a number of different explanations to his lawyers and the Commission about his presence in Malta and use of a false passport on 21 December 1988
viii. The SCCRC believed “there was a real risk that the trial court would have viewed his explanations … as weak or unconvincing” “In particular, the Commission notes the unsatisfactory nature of aspects of their (Megrahi and Fhimah) explanations and the various contradictions which are apparent both within and between their accounts. Although it is possible there are innocent reasons for these deficiencies, they do lead the Commission to have reservations about the credibility and reliability of both as witnesses.”
The commission's role is to conduct an investigation and determine whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice. It does not follow that there was a miscarriage of justice, only the Appeal Court can decide that. It should be noted that not all referrals by the SCCRC result in convictions being overturned; less than half of convictions referred to the Appeal are overturned.
In preparing for Megrahi’s second appeal [which followed the Commission's report] the Crown had considered all the information in the Statement of Reasons and had every confidence in successfully defending the conviction in the Appeal Court for a second time. Although it is entirely a matter for the Commission if the case is referred again to the Appeal court the Crown will defend the conviction.
It is not appropriate or helpful to seek to try a case in the media. The only place to determine guilt or innocence is in a court of law. The trial court accepted that this was an act of State sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone.
Investigations will continue to bring the others involved in the murder of 270 persons to justice.
As a result the Crown will be making no further comment on the evidence in the case and on the Statement of Reasons.
[John Ashton's response to each of the points raised in the Crown Office press release can be read here.]
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 (google translation, german/english):
ReplyDeleteWell said, the investigations in the "Lockerbie-Affair" will be continued. Edwin Bollier and ex Eng. Ulrich Lumpert from MEBO Ltd are ready immediately for a meeting of the Scottish Justice to prove in presence with international experts within 10 minutes, that the two MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35 (b) and DP/31 (a) from special forensic reasons, can not his been involved in a explosion ! We recommend us and we are waiting for the invitation of the Scottish Justiciary.
+++
Gut gesagt, die Untersuchungen in der "Lockerbie-Affäre" werden weitergeführt. Edwin Bollier und ex Eng. Ulrich Lumpert von MEBO Ltd sind sofort bereit bei einem Meeting der Scottish Justice, im beisein internationaler Experten, innerhalb 10Minuten zu beweisen, dass die beiden MST-13 Timer Fragmente (PT/35 (b) und DP-31/a) aus speziellen forensischen Gründen, nicht an einer Explosion beteiligt gewesen sein können ! Wir empfehlen uns und warten auf das Aufgebot der Scottish Justiciary.
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication at Switzerland. URL:www.lockerbie.ch