Ashton says he is in no doubt that
Scotland got the wrong man when Megrahi was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am
Flight 103 in December 1988 which instantly killed the 259 passengers and crew
aboard the plane and another 11 in the town of Lockerbie below.
Ashton also believes that those
responsible for the bombing may never be brought to justice and calls the trial
and conviction the "biggest scandal of Scotland's post-devolution
era" and an act that "disgraces Scotland's criminal justice system".
He says the evidence still held by
the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which investigated the
conviction as a possible miscarriage of justice, should be made public.
The SCCRC found six grounds on which
Megrahi's conviction was potentially unsafe. Both Megrahi and the Scottish
Government want publication of the 800-page report in the interests of
transparency, but this is subject to data-protection law which is reserved to
Westminster.
That means approval has to be given
by the key players in the case, including Megrahi, the Crown Office, Dumfries
and Galloway Police, and witnesses including the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci
whose evidence linking Meghrai to the bombing has been questioned.
QUESTION: Is Megrahi blocking the
publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report which
recommended that his case be returned to the Appeal Court in 2007? If not, who
is?
answer: No. His position is that
everything must be published and he says he will allow everything over which he
has a say to be published. He is happy for the evidence that doesn't stand in
his favour to come out as well. His line is everyone should put out all the
evidence. His beef is that 20 years after he was indicted, they are still
withholding stuff.
Q. Has Megrahi ever said who was
responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, or who he thinks did it?
A. No. And he won't. Because it was
nothing to do with Libya. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing
towards a Palestinian cell in Germany. But he's very clear on this. He said he
has been wrongly accused and it could be they have been as well. His line is we
have to concentrate on disproving the evidence against him not on proving it
against others. It is for the police to find the people who really did it, not
for him and his legal team.
Q. Did he have any – even tangential
– involvement or foreknowledge of the bombing?
A. No. That's my belief and that's
what he says.
Q. So if he is to be believed, we
have mass murderers on the loose that have not been dealt with in over 20
years. Has Megrahi ever raised any questions over seeking the real culprits?
A. He has sympathy for the bereaved
and thinks they have been cheated. But he is very reluctant to point fingers,
purely because of his own experience of being wrongly fingered.
Q. What about Megrahi's longevity
despite being given a few months to live because of his prostate-cancer
diagnosis?
A. The medical evidence was that the
three months [to live] was a realistic prognosis. But clearly there was
pressure on here. The Scottish Government as well as the UK Government, as well
as the Libyans – everyone – was desperate for confirmation that he might only
have a few months to live. It was a political fix, wasn't it? But that's not to
say there was any dishonesty on the part of the doctors.
Q. What proof is there that during a
meeting between Libyan diplomat Abdulati al-Obeidi and Justice Secretary Kenny
MacAskill on August 10, 2009, a suggestion was made that it would be easier to
gain compassionate release if Megrahi dropped his appeal? In what circumstances
did MacAskill have this conversation?
A. The story is that Obeidi who led
the Libyan delegation went for meetings with MacAskill and officials, and after
that they went to the prison to see Megrahi. Obeidi later said to Megrahi that,
during the meeting or at the end of the meeting, MacAskill had taken him to one
side and said: look it would be easier to grant compassionate release if
Megrahi dropped his appeal.
Q. So it is hearsay?
A. MacAskill has since fallen back on
the fact there was a minute of the meeting and it reflects what went on. It's a
load of waffle. If you look at it, it is one page long and a third of that page
is a list of attendees. It's five bullet points, it is incredible. In any case,
the whole point of taking someone aside is that it is not minuted.
Q. What do you make of MacAskill's
denial that he said it would be easier to release Megrahi on compassionate
grounds if he dropped his appeal.
A. It boils down to Obeidi's word
against MacAskill and Obeidi's a Gaddafi regime relic and under house arrest.
People will say Obeidi shouldn't be believed.
You have to look at motive. What was
Obeidi's motive for lying to Megrahi. There was huge pressure to get him home
and Obeidi maybe felt he could help persuade him. But beyond that, it is a bit
opaque. Gaddafi wanted the conviction overturned, he wanted to get back into
the international community and put the issue behind him. Then you look at
MacAskill's motive and that [would be] to save the criminal justice system in
Scotland a massive embarrassment.
They would be forced to account for
why all the evidence the SCCRC turned up that had not been disclosed to the
defence had been withheld. This would have been catastrophic for them, I think.
Also, the real killers have gone free.
One of the real scandals in this is
what resulted from the indictment that was issued against Megrahi and [his
co-accused] Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah 20 years ago. It should not be [MacAskill]
that is on the hot seat, it should be the then Lord Advocate. Because he should
have to answer to why there was non-disclosure of all the evidence.
But unfortunately what happens is
that we get Kenny McAskill having to yet again make comments on the release of
Megrahi. Until the government distances itself from the Crown Office on this
and says, yes, we need to get to the bottom of it and order an inquiry - this
is a scandal that will undermine the government. And MacAskill in that respect
is in the firing line.
Q. Why does Megrahi not restart his
appeal against conviction if he is innocent?
A. He's dying. He can't do those sort
of things. Getting through a day is difficult enough. He's had 10 years away
from his family. He would feel, yes, great if [he could clear his] name in
future but he has too much on his plate. He could have started it before but
the climate wasn't right for it. Nobody wanted an appeal before but now I think
for the Scottish Government, an appeal might be the least worse option. Now, I
know it is not within their gift to give it, but everyone is so up against the
wall now, I think, that it will be more damaging to refuse any application made
to appeal than to grant it.
I think his family may want to
[orchestrate an appeal], but they are managing his death. They have the rest of
their lives to do it. It is quite clear he won't be cleared while he's alive.
His daughter is a lawyer and if they don't Jim Swire will. [Swire, a supporter
of Megrahi, is the father of 23-year-old Flora who died in the atrocity]. It
would require an application to the SCCRC and that has to pass two tests.
One, is there a potential miscarriage
of justice, the answer to that is clearly yes because they have already said
that. Secondly, which is trickier, is whether it is in the interests of
justice. Then the circumstances of the abandonment of his appeal is important,
because you have to demonstrate that by doing that he was not admitting guilt.
Clearly he wasn't, but I think that's a hurdle he has to get over.
Q. So Megrahi wants a posthumous
appeal?
A. He definitely wants to clear his
name. We have not discussed the mechanism for a posthumous appeal but you can
take it as read that he would want it.
Q. What does Megrahi think of Jim
Swire's leading role in campaigning for him?
A. He's very touched and has massive
respect for him.
Q. Has Megrahi provided information
for any future appeal?
A. He's given it to the SCCRC
already. They have interviewed him at length, they have access to all his
precognition statements, they have everything they could need.
Q. How did Megrahi feel when Gadaffi
paid compensation for Lockerbie, effectively admitting Libyan guilt?
A. He wasn't happy. The Libyan
Government position was clear. They had to accept legal responsibility because
otherwise they couldn't get rid of the sanctions in place at the time.
Q. So he would say Libya weren't
responsible.
A. Oh yeah.
Q. When First Minister Alex Salmond
says he is irritated and frustrated by the book's claims, how do you react?
A. I share the frustration that the
attention has been on the issue of Megrahi's release, when it should be on the
Crown Office's failure to disclose evidence. Hopefully, the government are
coming round to being genuinely welcoming of the possibility of publication (of
the SCCRC report). If that's the case then they must know a lot of the flak
will come the way of the Crown Office.
Q. What do you want to see happen
now?
A. First, a full inquiry which will
cover why all the evidence was withheld from the trial. But I would also echo
the relatives' call for a broader inquiry into Lockerbie, including the
warnings that were given of an attack on Pan Am and why those weren't heeded.
Secondly, the case should go back to the court of appeal. The case is still
open and the police are going to Libya.
Q. If Megrahi is innocent, how did he
get caught up in the biggest murder trial in history?
A. That's a very good question. You
enter into the realms of speculation. It looks like it was a frame up, to put
the blame on Libya. Not by the police. The police reasonably honestly followed
the leads that were put their way.
Q. How did he feel in Tripoli airport
when the Saltire was flown by Libyans – knowing as he must that this would
injure the government which freed him?
A. It was presented as a Government-orchestrated
carnival. But if you read Wikileaks, a confidential cable from the US embassy
undermined the US and UK government's claim that Megrahi's reception when he
returned home was a grossly orchestrated pageant. It acknowledged that the
crowd assembled at the airport numbered only around 100 and that only one
Libyan TV channel broadcast the event.
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012 (doc. nr.7100.rtf):
ReplyDelete"In Albdelbaset Al Megrahi’s biography, "You are my Jury"-psychologically evaluated - Megrahi say the Truth and nothing but the Truth, also In the following excerpt:
On 10 August (2009), MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Foreign minister Abdelati Al-Obeidi. By this time
I was desperate.
After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Minister OBEIDI SAID that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal.
*He (MacAskill) said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me to be clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice".
*This statement clearly shows the honesty words from Megrahi; otherwise Megrahi would also argue that MacAskill has forced him to withdraw immediately its appeal against his release...
When former Foreign Minister Abdelati Al-Obeidi from (NTC) get released from prison, he can confirm the IMMORAL STATEMENT of Minister MacAskill !
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012: (google translation, german/englisch):
ReplyDeleteThe Good Deed by Kenny MacAskill MSP - Cabinet Secretary for Justic was that he allowed the release of Al Megrahi and have take over the responsibility as only one in front of the Scottish Parliament .
Humanly excellent -- thank You.
Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Libya have nothing to do with the bombing of Pan Am 103 !
by Edwin and Mahnaz, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland. URL: www.lockerbie.ch
I don't like this piece. This Q&A thing in the Herald is frustrating. The paper is posing questions it already knows the answers to and has done for years so why treat John Ashton's revelations as information it hasn't seen before? Furthermore, the Herald knows only too well the main thrust of the SCCRC case. Its disappointing to me that they're treating it like some guy has come along only now with a few theories and they need him to explain them, that they're only his theories and there isn't already evidence available to them, allegedly Scotland's Quality Newspaper, to publicly call the political and judicial establishments to account over Lockerbie.
ReplyDelete