[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
Award-winning author James Robertson is courting controversy after basing his next novel on the events surrounding the Lockerbie terrorist bombing.
Robertson, recently hailed as “Scotland’s greatest living writer” by First Minister Alex Salmond, has been a constant supporter of the campaign to clear the name of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie murders, but who was released from jail in Scotland on compassionate grounds before his death earlier this year. Robertson has also used high-profile lectures to cast doubt on Megrahi’s conviction.
Now his latest novel, The Professor of Truth, due to be published in June and billed as being “inspired by the Lockerbie bombing”, tells the story of a university lecturer whose wife and daughter are killed in the terrorist bombing of a plane over Scotland 21 years earlier.
In an echo of the story of Dr Jim Swire, the Worcestershire GP whose daughter died in the real bombing, the academic is sure that the man convicted of the multiple murders was not responsible and that he has been deprived of justice.
The plot may revive accusations that Robertson uses his writing to provide “alternative” versions of history. One critic, Ian Smart, former head of the Law Society in Scotland, wrote that the author’s previous prize-winning novel, And The Land Lay Still, which charted the rise of Scottish nationalism, “was like reading one of those ‘alternative history’ books set in a world where the USA had lost the War of Independence or Hitler had been successful at Stalingrad”.
Robertson has also been criticised by US relatives of Lockerbie victims as being part of a “cottage industry of deniers” and of being a cheerleader for Megrahi. Frank Duggan, president of the US-based support group Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 said: “If the book is inspired by the Lockerbie bombing and the author believes Megrahi was not guilty despite what was found by your courts, I am afraid it will not rise to the top of my reading list.
“I know there is now a cottage industry of deniers, from books to films to stage productions, shilling [working on behalf of] for Megrahi. I guess James Robertson takes the position that it was not Megrahi, but it was some other Libyans who were guilty of these unspeakable murders. [RB: I suspect that Mr Duggan’s guess is as misconceived as most of his Lockerbie statements.] It is disheartening that Mr Robertson can give speeches to sold out audiences based on his version of the facts.” (...)
Robertson could not be contacted about his novel, but he has spoken several times previously about his belief that Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
In 2010, he said he was taking a stand on the issue because he feared that when Megrahi died, the truth would never be told.
“It is crucial for the relatives because they feel, 22 years after the event, that they still don’t know what happened and who was responsible,” he said.
“There is also a stain on the Scottish justice system, as this does not look or feel right. As long as the answers are not addressed this stain will not be removed.”
Then in 2011, addressing the Edinburgh Book Festival in a speech entitled “The Lockerbie Affair and Scottish Society”, he outlined six key reasons that pointed to Megrahi’s innocence saying: “The more I look, the more I am forced to the conclusion that if there is a conspiracy around Lockerbie, it is not one concocted by those who doubt the guilt of Mr Megrahi, but a conspiracy of silence in which the US, UK and Scottish governments are all, though not from shared motives, implicated.”
He also wrote to Salmond to express support for the calls of the UK relatives for a full and independent inquiry. He said he was disappointed to receive the standard response that the Scottish Government had no reason to doubt the safety of Megrahi’s conviction.
Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was killed on Pan Am Flight 103, is also convinced that Megrahi was innocent of the murders. Last January, he travelled to Tripoli to meet and say goodbye to Megrahi, and was “entirely satisfied” he was not to blame for the bombing.
Swire said he had already read Robertson’s latest work. “I think the book is, as is usual with James Robertson’s work, an excellent read, and I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever and I’ve told him that. I feel entirely comfortable with the book.”
He added that parts of Robertson’s novel reminded him of the immediate aftermath of the bombing. “The first half was so close to the events that followed the Lockerbie disaster,” he said. “The second part is pure fiction, but perfectly interesting fiction to read.”
Professor of Truth will be published by Penguin and the promotional material reads: “Twenty-one years after his wife and daughter were murdered in the bombing of a plane over Scotland, Alan Tealing, a university lecturer, still does not know the truth of what really happened on that terrible night. Obsessed by the details of what he has come to call ‘The Case’, he is sure that the man convicted of the atrocity was not responsible, and that he himself has thus been deprived not only of justice but also of any chance of escape from his enduring grief.
“When an American intelligence officer, apparently terminally ill and determined to settle his own accounts before death, arrives on his doorstep with information about a key witness in the trial, a fateful sequence of events is set in motion.
“Alan decides that he must travel to Australia to confront this witness, whose evidence he has always disbelieved, in the hope that this might at last be the breakthrough for which he has waited so long.”
[Peter Biddulph has emailed me the following comment:]
I guess it is the fate of every questioning writer to be accused of siding with the enemy, and James Robertson (The Professor of Truth) is no exception.
John Le Carré's The Tailor of Panama exposed American brutality and state corruption and terrorism in Central America. As a former MI6 officer Le Carre knew well the inner workings of the Transatlantic relationship. He deserves respect for his eventual honesty.
Arther Miller's The Crucible resulted in accusations of being a Communist and blacklisting by Hollywood and several publishers.
John Steinbeck was accused of being a Communist sympathiser following the publication of The Grapes of Wrath during a phase of history when the word Communist equated to the leper's cry of "Unclean".
James is indeed in good company and should take courage from this traditional badge of honour.
Duggan:
ReplyDelete"I guess James Robertson takes the position that it was not Megrahi, but it was some other Libyans who were guilty of these unspeakable murders."
Sly guy! Deception all the way through.
"The more I look, the more I am forced to the conclusion that if there is a conspiracy around Lockerbie, it is not one concocted by those who doubt the guilt of Mr Megrahi, but a conspiracy of silence in which the US, UK and Scottish governments are all, though not from shared motives, implicated.”
ReplyDeleteHe missed out the Scottish Justice System
Ah yes, SM, does Mr Duggan's comment point to what is to come? What will Libya "opening up" all its documents on Lockerbie reveal? Play up the Libyan connection but play down the Megrahi angle? Our old pal Edwin certainly gave them a good framework to build a narrative around. Remember the tests of the MST 13 timers in the Sahara with Megrahi's predecessor as head of security at LAA, Nassr Ashur? Then there was also Edwin's dealings with Badri Hassan, Megrahi's associate, and his visit to meet Ezzadin Hinshiri, a friend of Megrahi's and, allegedly, a Department Head in JSO, shortly before the bombing. All these related to timer orders and Megrahi's conviction was in large part due to his guilt by association with these characters. Edwin Bollier was the person who enthusiastically supplied the investigators with the information they sought. Of course, he now seems to have back-tracked somewhat (though I'm not sure if he has ever fully clarified his new position).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I expect that much of the "new evidence" which we are all being promised will rehash and perhaps embellish all these old stories and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a new line developing which suggests that Megrahi was just a fall guy, a minor, even unwitting player, set-up by cunning Ghadaffi and co.
Attn. Mr.. Grendal
ReplyDeleteMISSION LOCKERBIE, 2012. (google translation, german/englissh:
Everything what you mention in your comment is correct, but what has this to do with the bombing on PanAm-103 ?
The MST-13 Timerfragment prototype (PT/35) circuit board was manipulated by a stolen and non-functional MST-13 timer circuit board. Such MST-13 timer (prototype) does not come from a MST-13 Timer series, was supplied to the Libya army !
With all the other facts and group of person names, listed by you, was construct the lying "Lockerbie affair".
A realy dirty back engineering link - fom Lockerbie to Libya - with a crucial manipulated PT/35) fragment evidence...
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland, URL: www.lockerbie.ch
George Galloway and Frank Duggan discuss Lockerbie... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkehXY26Ghw
ReplyDeletePan Am 103... This is the best and clearest explanation of the bombing and the evidence against Libya that I have seen. I have always had great admiration for Stratfor but I must admit, I just found this year old article. It will be very helpful in light of the persistent charges from the Libya shills and Megrahi supporters who try to point the finger away from Libya. Thank you very much.
ReplyDeleteFrank Duggan, President
Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, Inc.
http://wl.wikileaks-press.org/gifiles/docs/376053_fw-pan-am-103-.html
Frank Duggan says ‘if not Megrahi, then some other Libyan’?
ReplyDeleteAnd Rolfe says ‘if not the Libyans, then some other Arab, Muslim or Palestinian’?
For him to blame a ‘Khreesat bomb’ without any bomb remains being found is just speculation and an example of a political prejudice looking for a bomb to fit a theory.
Sadly Duggan defends the official line and Rolfe defends the unofficially-official alternative explanation.
David, I can't access the article which Mr Duggan is praising; can you post it up in an idiot-proof way so that I can read it, please?
ReplyDeleteIf Mr Duggan is now moving away from Megrahi being the culprit to a more general "it was Libya" stance then this is surely a remarkable coup for JfM. As I read it, JfM has only ever said that the evidence against Megrahi did not stack up and has never offered an alternative narrative.
Dave, Rolfe's and Mr Duggan's position are not two sides of the same coin as you imply. We would expect the remains of the bomb (if there were any) and the items around it to be the most fragmented, lightest of all the crash debris as well as being amongst the earliest out of the plane and, therefore, at the highest altitude. They would, as a result, come to ground level further to the south east than any other items of crash debris and that might well mean the North Sea.
It is hard to see how clothing, paper and plastic from inside a suitcase could be charred for any other reason other than proximity to a bomb.
Grendal wrote:
ReplyDelete"Megrahi's conviction was in large part due to his guilt by association with these characters."
Right, this was a part of the "real and convincing pattern" stated in the verdict:
"He was involved with Mr Bollier ... and had along with Badri Hassan formed a company which ... intended to do business with MEBO."
To some people, and, as we see, including the trial judges, this will count against Megrahi. One more circumstantial piece of evidence, right?
Absolutely not. Libya was already established as buyers of the MEBO timers, which is clearly relevant.
Would Megrahi then be more likely to be selected for the bombing job because he knew MEBO? A very irrelevant qualification.
A gangster is on trial for a murder. The police has determined that an "A&B" gun was used, a rare type known used by the gang of which the accused is member.
This fact is clearly relevant evidence.
But is the accused then more likely to be guilty because he and the CEO of A&B had a personal relationship?
Nonsense. Should be childishly clear, and sorry if anyone not being trial judges should think I am stating the obvious.
But in a case paperthin on evidence, the relationship can be used to establish some additional "link" between the accused and the crime. The more the better. And it worked.
It is indeed a good question what will come up from Libya. Creating some documents, even instructing witnesses, would be an easy task, and we must assume they have learned from their errors and do it perfectly this time.
Dave, something inside a brown samsonite suitcase ripped that case apart, blew out the side and base of container AVE4041 and blew a hole in the side of the aircraft. Lugage within AVE4041 suffered damage consistent with an explosion. Traces consistent with Semtex were left on the damaged items. If that's not evidence of an explosive device, I don't know what is.
ReplyDeleteAs Grendal has pointed out, the actual parts of an IED itself are the least likely to survive or be recovered, but many fragments of the outer casing of a Toshiba radio-cassette were recovered. Marwan Khreesat of the PFLP-GC was known to use devices of this type to house IEDs. So you can't claim that no remains of the bomb were found.
Please get this into your head: no government, no airport, no airline wants to admit that terrorists have breached its security measures and achieved as significant a coup as the bringing down of an aircraft, unless the evidence is incontrovertible. When an aircraft goes down the first thought is to look for evidence of a collision or mechanical failure, or a pilot error. A 'victory' for terrorists will only be admitted if there is hard physical evidence that this is the case. That's how it was with Pan Am 103.
Grendal,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.goodreads.com/review/show/337485161
Pete, evidence of blast damage is not evidence of a bomb intentionally left to explode. To blame a bomb requires additional evidence, such as bomb remains.
ReplyDeleteBut evidence of an IED type bomb is less likely to survive than a ‘real bomb’, because they are made of every-day items and therefore once bits are recovered they are not proof of a bomb.
Therefore we are left with evidence of an explosion, but not of a bomb.
However if there was a claim of responsibility that explained convincingly how it was done, this could provide the additional evidence needed, but this has been notable by its absence.
The authorities may or may not attribute accidents to terrorism and they may or may not bear false witness against those involved or perhaps they may just be wrong?
But speculation about what the authorities would or wouldn’t do is not evidence of a bomb?
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090826_libya_heros_welcome
ReplyDeleteI think that this is the article to which Mr Duggan refers in his email revealed by Wikileaks. If it is, it surely can't warrant Mr Duggan's gushing praise that it is "the best and clearest explanation of the bombing and the evidence against Libya that I have seen."
As we can see there are a number of inaccuracies eg Kreesat's "dud" bombs and non-sequiturs eg the timer's "mis-setting" and it concentrates on Libya's, rather than Megrhi's, guilt.
More helpful to us "Libya shills and Megrahi supporters" than to Mr Duggan's discredited narrative, I think.
Mmmm. It's entirely superficial. It's just an uncritical restatement of the Crown case. It adds nothing, simply repeating the half-truths and false logic.
ReplyDeleteAs you say, these are the two serious goof-ups. The plane wasn't late at all. This is made crystal clear in the trial transcript. In fact, if you read David Johnston's May 1989 book about the inquiry, he put a number of questions to Pan Am and one of them was, was the plane late? Answer, no.
The plane didn't miss its slot. The pilot was so concerned not to miss his slot he pushed off from the stand while his last passenger was still running for the gate. Why is this constantly ignored?
It's completely normal for departing flights at Heathrow to take 20 or 25 minutes between pushing off from the stand and the wheels leaving the runway. PA103 was 25 minutes from nominal departure time and 21 minutes from actually leaving the stand. Nothing unusual at all about that. Megrahi was a qualified flight dispatcher. Does Duggan think a qualified flight dispatcher would imagine planes miraculously levitate from the tarmac the instant the doors are closed? And even that wouldn't have done it.
If PA103 had had a near-miraculous clear run to the runway, the minimum time it could have taken to get airborne was about 15 minutes. Ten minutes less than the actual time. Ten minutes after Lockerbie the plane would have been over Glasgow. Twenty-five minutes after Lockerbie it might have been over Skye. On that route, there was no chance it could have been over the Atlantic, no matter how fast a getaway the plane managed from Heathrow.
On a more southerly route it still could not possibly have made it to the Atlantic. It's possible it might have landed in the Irish Sea, but that's a pretty small window to hit with a departure time that would vary within a 15-minute window at best, and the exact route being an extremely moveable feast. It could easily have hit Dublin. In fact it was far more likely to have hit Dublin than Lockerbie, except for the weather. Gaddafi was a major IRA supporter. Would he really have been happy to take a serious risk of crashing an airliner on the capital of the Irish Republic?
The crash was impossibly close to Heathrow to be compatible with any intention to lose the evidence in the Atlantic. There was a seven-hour flight ahead. Set a timer for around 11 o'clock to midnight GMT, and the plane would have vanished as effectively as AF447.
Also, as you say, the question of the "dud" Khreesat bombs. Perhaps the author needs to go and talk to Hans Sonntag's family and tell them their son/father/brother/husband can't actually have been killed by one of them. Or perhaps they could explain to Thomas Ettinger that he wasn't really blinded by the same explosion?
Dave wrote:
ReplyDelete"Pete, evidence of blast damage is not evidence of a bomb intentionally left to explode. To blame a bomb requires additional evidence, such as bomb remains.
But evidence of an IED type bomb is less likely to survive than a ‘real bomb’, because they are made of every-day items and therefore once bits are recovered they are not proof of a bomb.
Therefore we are left with evidence of an explosion, but not of a bomb."
Good, so we're agreed that there was an explosion. Two questions , then.
First, what innocent explanation do you have for the presence of 450g of Semtex in a baggage container on board Pan Am 103?
Second, how was this explosive detonated? I know of no evidence that Semtex can be detonated by sudden decompression; it requires an explosive detonating cap.
Pete, two perfectly valid questions to which you may think there are obvious answers, but without any bomb remains or confessions of guilt, not evidence of a bomb.
ReplyDeleteSadly even if 'in our hearts we know what caused it or who did it', without evidence some crimes go unsolved.
Otherwise to turn a political prejudice into 'incontrovertable evidence of a Khreesat bomb' is worhty of a Zeist Judge.
You could maybe point out where anyone used the word "incontrovertible" in relation to a Khreesat device?
ReplyDelete