[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
No Scottish police officers have visited Libya as part of the reinvestigation into the Lockerbie bombing more than a year after the Gaddafi regime was toppled, it was revealed.
A fresh inquiry into the bombing was announced last October.
Much has been made of the "live" investigation and the Crown Office's plans to unearth new documents and evidence following the collapse of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime.
However, the high-profile plans to re-investigate the Lockerbie bombing now appear to have stalled with the revelation that the Metropolitan Police have travelled to Tripoli to investigate the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher but no visas for Scottish officers have been issued.
In May, The Herald revealed that Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, had been on a secret mission to Libya to pave the way for further investigation into the Lockerbie bombing.
He travelled to Tripoli with FBI director Robert Mueller to meet Libyan Prime Minister Abdurahim el-Keib and other officials, including the justice minister Ali Hamiada Ashour.
It was thought the Libyan Transitional Government had agreed that UK and Scottish police could begin work in the country.
But while officers from the Met travelled to Libya in July to progress the investigation into the policewoman's murder, no Scottish officer has been granted access.
Dumfries and Galloway Police, the lead force on Lockerbie, said it continued to assist the Crown and US authorities.
Detective Superintendent Mickey Dalgleish, said: "The investigation into the involvement of others with Megrahi in the Lockerbie bombing remains open and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary continues to work with Crown Office and US authorities to pursue available lines of enquiry."
Assurances have been given to the new Libyan Prime Minister by the Crown Office about the terms of the fresh Lockerbie investigation following initial claims that no treaty existed for UK police to visit Libya.
A number of the relatives of the Lockerbie bombing have expressed concerns about the validity of information to be found in Libya following the collapse of the old regime.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the bombing which killed 270 people, said: "Their plan to gather more evidence in Libya to pin on Megrahi is based on shifting sands.
"Megrahi was not guilty, but that does not mean there was involvement by the higher echelons in the Libyan regime."
"Megrahi was not guilty, but that does not mean there was involvement by the higher echelons in the Libyan regime."
ReplyDeleteSurprise! I must be misinformed. I don't recall having seen any other evidence for this than
- they bought MEBO timers (with metal alloys that did not match the fragment in court)
- statements of Giaka, which not even the Zeist judges could get away with putting faith in
- the conviction of one Libyan Mr. Al-Megrahi, discussed elsewhere
Did I miss anything important?
Sure we can exclude nothing, not even the possible involvement of marsians - but by this statement Dr. Jim opens up for thinking that he, with his knowledge, have good particular reasons to put Libya on the suspects list.
If this would be the case, we must accept that this is strong support for those believing that Megrahi was in fact guilty.
So, do we have good reasons to suspect Libya?
SM, I think you've misunderstood what Jim Swire is saying here. There are people who express the view that even if Megrahi wasn't involved, some other high-level Libyans were or must have been. Dr Swire is saying that Megrahi's innocence does not entail that consequence at all: "that does not mean there was involvement by the higher echelons in the Libyan regime."
ReplyDelete"Megrahi was not guilty, but that does not mean there was involvement by the higher echelons in the Libyan regime."
ReplyDeletePlease check - it is a bit confusing. It sounds as if he meant to say:
"Megrahi was not guilty, but that does not mean there was *no* involvement by the higher echelons in the Libyan regime."
I have no reason to believe that he didn't mean what he actually said. Lucy Adams is a good enough reporter not to miss out "no" from a quotation. And Dr Swire is an experienced enough interviewee to say what he means.
ReplyDeleteThank you for the explanation, Robert. For some reason my brain read it exactly as the statement Vronsky talks about.
ReplyDelete