Monday 7 January 2013

Scepticism about Lockerbie inquiry

[A further letter from Christopher Frew headed Scepticism about Lockerbie inquiry in today’s edition of The Herald responds to comments on his earlier letter.  It reads as follows:]

May I make it clear that I am not against a public inquiry on the Lockerbie bombing because it would upset US public opinion (Letters, January 5)?

Far from it.

Regarding the Libyan connection, an appropriately qualified small committee should be able to profit from the Libyan government's co-operation to clarify Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's and, especially, Colonel Gaddafi's role prior to the bombing and then report openly on its methods and conclusions.

This would be quicker and less costly than a full public inquiry.

My main doubts, however, focus on the alternative possibility: involvement of the Iranians and the PFLP-GC, information on which would almost certainly depend on the co-operation of the US agencies, past and present.

My attitude to this is one of scepticism not one of deference.

5 comments:

  1. Hmmm. My main concerns focus on the absolute dead certainty that Megrahi was falsely convicted, and that the Crown's pet fairy-story about an invisible levitating suitcase at Malta airport was pure fantasy.

    How can we possibly have an inquiry into anything without acknowledging that? How can we have the foggiest idea who did it or whether Libya was involved at all, if the basic fact of the modus operandi is not understood?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I entirely agree, Rolfe. Moreover, the emphasis here is also on the question of cost. This is not the first time cost has raised its head in the context of a Lockerbie/Zeist inquiry. The priorities are interesting. When questions were brought up about possible corruption and the like relating to the cost overruns etc surrounding the construction of the building which accommodates our parliamentarians, I don't recall any great brouhaha over the cost of the Fraser Inquiry. However, when dealing with the mass murder of 270 people and a justice system that is in tatters as a result of government and Crown Office intransigence and unwillingness to deal with what many think is a massive miscarriage of justice, suddenly cost is a problem. I feel ashamed to declare that I am a Scot.

    Robert Forrester (JFM).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sheesh!

    This letter is even worse than the last one. I'm sure there will be plenty of responses.

    "Regarding the Libyan connection, an appropriately qualified small committee should be able to profit from the Libyan government's co-operation....."

    Which small band of "qualified" people would he select for his "small committee" then? And in light of the failure to find "open-ness", even in a court of law, in this case who, exactly could we trust to report truthfully?

    As for this:

    ....to clarify Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi's and, especially, Colonel Gaddafi's role prior to the bombing and then report openly on its methods and conclusions."

    He is absolutely unwilling to accept that may not have been the case at all!

    As for the final point, that if we can't find out who really did it then we shouldn't bother.....when nearly 300 died in this atrocity, well, that is just a shocking position to adopt.

    I think the only thing he's right about is that his idea would certainly be quicker and less expensive than a full public inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Who is this guy anyway, that he's coming out with these po-faced suggestions? Is somebody prompting him?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I wondered that too Rolfe. The name isn't familiar to me.

    ReplyDelete