Wednesday, 21 August 2013

Police instructed not to investigate three of JFM's criminality allegations

[The campaign group Justice for Megrahi has issued a press release to accompany its secretary’s report on recent meetings with the police officers investigating its allegations of criminal conduct during the investigation, prosecution and trial of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. It reads as follows:]

In an unprecedented action the Crown Office has stopped Police Scotland from investigating criminal allegations of perjury and attempting to pervert the course of justice made by Justice for Megrahi (JFM). This action is only the latest twist in what are seen as Crown Office and Government attempts to thwart a public inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988.


For years Justice for Megrahi has been campaigning to have the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi overturned. For years successive governments and the Crown Office have resisted these pleas.

Last year JFM, following a detailed reassessment of the available evidence, made eight criminal allegations to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 13 September in relation to the investigation, prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. They asked him to order an independent investigation into these matters as some of the allegations involved personnel from the Crown Office, and Scottish police forces including  Dumfries and Galloway. Mr MacAskill refused to act and JFM was forced, under protest, to report the matters to the Dumfries and Galloway Force. From 1 April this year Police Scotland  has been carrying out the investigation.

Before the police had even started their investigations however the Crown Office publicly dismissed them as “defamatory and entirely unfounded” and stated that, “It is a matter of the greatest concern that deliberately false and misleading allegations have been made in this way”. A short time later the Lord Advocate, Mr Frank Mulholland, publicly criticised JFM and their allegations in similar terms.

Last week the police informed members of JFM that the Crown Office had instructed that they should no longer investigate three of the most serious allegations of perjury and perverting the course of justice and that they were not at liberty to give any explanation.


In 2009 Stone of Scone legend Ian Hamilton QC, a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign, pointed out that ”When the minister for Justice shares a bed with the Lord Advocate the freedom of us all is in jeopardy… Many of us believe there are prosecutions which are politically driven. Mr Megrahi was one of them.”

Now four years later it seems that the possibility of political interference rears its ugly head yet again. Members of JFM regard this latest development as profoundly disturbing and sinister in that it confirms their original misgivings over having the Crown Office and police effectively investigate themselves. These arrogant and arbitrary actions by the Crown Office undermines the Lord Advocate’s traditional constitutional political independence, raises  serious questions about the entire function and administration of the criminal justice system in Scotland and places at risk the rights of the citizens of Scotland to have to a fair and impartial investigation of their legitimate concerns.

(Note:  A redacted copy of the full allegations and other information can be found at:

[RB: It was indicated by the investigators that although the Crown Office had instructed that the allegations in question should not form part of the current investigation, it was intended that they should be investigated at some unspecified date in the future. Scepticism is, I think, permissible.]


  1. At the end of the day the UK and now Scottish Governments have taken a political decision to allow an extraordinary miscarriage of justice, at the behest of USA.

    Therefore the Government will not allow the Crown Office to investigate this Government decision.

    But the deceit of course is the Government won’t admit this, but instead are hiding behind the Crown Office and allowing the farce of an on-going ‘live’ investigation to continue.

    A deceit maintained to avoid the political backlash that could make a difference if the truth was told.

  2. You couldn't make it up. I imagine JfM's 5th 6th & 7th allegations do conflict with this "live" and "on-going" investigation. (Strange that allegation 3, which also relates to the Heathrow origin, wasn't included.)

    In relation to allegation 5, which concern allegations of perjury in relation to the exhibit PT/35(b)my article "Hear No Evil, see No Evil, Speak No Evil" at part X of The Masonic Verses points out that the SCCRC discovered (and ignored) clear evidence of perjury in relation to this exhibit and the famous "page 51".

    However this "conflict" is no reason not to investigate these allegations. Indeed the Crown Office position would be manna from heaven for the defence in the event that this "live" investigations results in any prosecution but of course that is not going to happen.

  3. There was a time where I frequently commented here. Now it is rare. It is not because of diminished interest, or because I don't feel like expressing opinions.

    No, the issue is, that I and (I'd assume) many others are in the same boat as Tom Lehrer was, when Henry Kissinger got the Nobel peace prize.

    "Satire has now become obsolete" Tom Lehrer was reported to say.

    Right. Tom Lehrer might indeed one day have made a song about Kissinger getting the prize.

    But reality came first.

    - - -

    Also the realities in the Lockerbie case have long been of a nature where there is not much to say.

    What would an appropriate comment be on this case where The Crown seems to have the power to indefinitely delay a case that directly or indirectly would incriminate their work, doings and responsibilities?

    The reality speaks for itself. Short of stating the obvious, comments are obsolete.

  4. Dear All,

    Whilst I fully understand the sentiment, comments are most certainly not obsolete. It can be depressingly cold out here sometimes.

    Robert Forrester.

  5. In response to the Sunday Herald's publication of the SCCRC's Statement of Reasons the Crown Office issued a statement claiming "The SCCRC found nothing to undermine the Trial Court's conclusions concerning the timer fragment." This is very far from the truth. While the findings were spun (and apparently vital evidence of the Forensic Document Examiner was suppressed) the SCCRC found a great deal to undermine the Trial Courts conclusions.

    The SCCRC of course was composed of Crown Office officials, temporarily seconded. They found no evidence of Criminal misconduct but had effectively discounted such a possibility. I think there is little day that the famous "page 51" of Dr Hayes(and was created long after May 12th as the SCCRC's investigation indicated.

    The SCCRC's own evidential house of cards was based on the conclusion that "photograph 117" featuring PT/35(b) was taken before the 22nd May 1989 although there is no chain of evidence to prove that the negative of photograph 117 is was the original photograph vaguely referred in the photographic log.

    I wrote my article partly to assist the Police in their enquiries indicating the two key areas for further enquiry. I presume it may have been of interest to the Crown Office. Perhaps that provoked the Lord Advocate's Crown extraordinary ruling that the Police persist with enquiries based on perjured evidence. The spirit of Lord Denning lives on!

  6. I don't quite know how to interpret it, but the fact is that allegations 5, 6 and 7 are all about the metallurgy results. The provenance of the fragment and the dodgy paperwork were not included and the SCCRC findings in that respect not challenged. So it's the identification of the thing with the MEBO timers they're nervous about.

  7. Dear All,

    The fact is that they've revealed their hand and we now know what rattles their cage.


  8. Dear Commentators,

    I have recently been contacted on the matter of the issue of the Crown Office's sitting on allegations 5, 6 and 7 by both Mr Len Murray, hailed as the greatest criminal solicitor of his generation, and Mr Ian Hamilton QC, who requires no introduction. They have the following to say on what is without doubt a scandal of the first water, and which, as I see from today's Sundays, seems to be being ignored at our peril.

    Len Murray:
    This is the most insidious and most frightening scandal in the judicial process of Scotland in living memory. And that is not just a hysterical outburst. It is quite unbelievable that Crown Office should act this way.

    Ian Hamilton QC:
    I think you [JFM] are doing a splendid job in exposing what is a running sore in the body politic of Scotland. The Lord Advocate must be seen to be independent of the government whom it is his duty to prosecute should it traverse any law. Parliament makes the law; not the government and the latter is bound by the law like the rest of us. Neither the Justice Minister nor the Lord Advocate have proved themselves fit to hold office and the sooner this is referred to the international body the better.

    Robert Forrester (Sec. JFM).

  9. "It is quite unbelievable that Crown Office should act this way."

    Aren't they forced?

    The fragment is dynamite. They just can't allow an investigation into that.

    We already have -

    Uncertainty regarding how and by whom it was found.

    Analysis showing no trace of bomb residue.

    Lumperts statement about passing a sample to a visitor. Until today I was unaware that Lumpert at some point gave a name "Swiss Commissioner Peter Fluckiger". Such a naming greatly adds weight to the story.

    The question of how the fragment survived at all.

    The stupid timing, with a great risk for an explosion before take-off.

    It is bad enough already, but hmmmm, and OK, and well, and maybe.

    But a fragment produced with a method that MEBO didn't use?? (this, after studying it all a bit, seems like a total certainty. It is not something you change.)

    It is just clear and well-defined enough that the sh** might hit the fan - or in other words - that the press wakes up, with headlines that just might moving voters.

    "Lockerbie: primary evidence faked, beyond doubt."

  10. I suggest that allegation 3 was kept in because it suits the authorities to keep campaigners looking down the ‘introduction of the IED at Heathrow’ blind alley!

  11. Dear Dave, whoever you may be,

    JFM is perfectly clear on how the COPFS directed investigation of allegations 2, 3 and 4 is likely to be responded to, whatever your opinion may be. Our objective is founded on the collection of ammunition.

    Pip, pip,

  12. There are tactical benefits for JfM in looking down blind alleys and other alleys too if it helps keep PE1370 alive, but how can a police investigation be ‘live’ and not examine the timer fragment?

  13. Sir (AKA: Dave),

    Until such time as you demonstrate conclusively and establish beyond reasonable doubt that your frankly half-witted notions of a cargo hold door failure was responsible for the downing of 103 and amass a following that that supports you akin to that of JFM, I hope that your ego is sufficient to keep you views afloat. JFM is not chasing up any 'blind alleys. We have spent years and a considerable amount of effort in attempting to demonstrate to the public and others precisely what the failings of the Zeist verdict were. Either you do likewise, reveal your hand and your identity or retire from the stage in a dignified manner. If you wish to understand even the rudiments of the problems at Heathrow, may I suggest that you consult: I hasten to add that a considerably more detailed version is in the possession of Police Scotland. I henceforth refuse to indulge in any further form of communication with yourself until such time as you have established that you are in full command of the facts.

    Robert Forrester (Sec. JFM).

  14. Debunking Zeist is not a blind alley and I admire JfM courage and determination to overturn the extraordinary miscarriage of justice.

    The lack of evidence is blinding.

    But who or what caused Lockerbie is a separate issue to be resolved at a public enquiry.

  15. Dear Sir,

    I thank you, sincerely, for your support. However, who or what caused Lockerbie could not be further from the issue that lies at the heart of JFM's cause. It must first be formally established that a miscarriage of justice occurred at Zeist, and Until such is achieved, no further movement in this case is possible. It is not the job of JFM or others to make up for the shortcomings of either the Scottish police force or COPFS because they have allowed a permafrost to bury what was staring themselves in the face in late 88 and early 89. Again, I thank you.

    Robert Forrester (Sec. JFM).

  16. Right now, I'd settle for them acknowledging the blatantly obvious fact that the blue Tourister was on top of the bomb suitcase. Even that utterly self-evident truth seems to be beyond their comprehension.

  17. Hey guys, have you seen this?

    Fabulous animation of the AAIB findings of the break-up of the plane. The physical reason for every bit of disintegration shown there is explained in the report.

    Maybe if Dave watches it a few dozen times he'll understand why it was an actual explosion that caused such a catastrophic break-up.

  18. Thank you for the link Rolfe.

    I do agree it was an explosion that caused the catastrophic break-up of the plane.

  19. Dear Rolfe I have just watched your link and clearly you are easily pleased.

    Impressive graphics but no explanation! Not surprising because the illustration is wrong.

    The AAIB report records the cockpit detaching from the plane in 3 seconds.

    In the graphic it takes 10.


  20. Discuss. The animation doesn't claim to be accurate as to time. Note the first 37 minutes of the flight are compressed into about 20 seconds. Then it slows down for effect when the bomb goes off.

    Now, baby steps. Can you see anything about the way the plane disintegrates that surprises you?

  21. Dear Dave,

    It is gratifying to see that such a high maintenance commentator like your good self is not beyond changing his mind. I don't know if you've read this but it is a most handy little number put together by our esteemed Secretary Depute: Personally, I think it essential reading for those, like you, who believe 103 to have been brought down by an explosion.


  22. If the animation doesn’t pretend to be accurate as to time, why show a timer that is wrong?

    And yes explosive decompression!

  23. The animation doesn't show a timer.

  24. - and we leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out why a failing cargo door could result in the disintegration of an airplane in 3 seconds, but a bomb could not.

  25. The animation is a simulation to promote a film, not an accurate depiction of the break-up.

    The cock-pit detached in 3 seconds towards the starboard side. This means instantaneous.

    Therefore it would have detached before most, if not all of the sequence shown.

  26. It doesn't mean that at all. The whole thing happened extremely quickly, in the sequence shown. The artist has simply slowed it down for effect.

    The animation clearly shows the real reason why the break-up was so rapid - something that couldn't have happened without an EXPLOSION. I already said, look up "overpressure".

  27. Oh, and three seconds is very far from "instantaneous". A hell of a lot can happen in three seconds.

  28. As I understand it the cock-pit was the first item in the debris trail.

    The following comment gives more information on the break-up.
    Robert Black said... 27 June, 2012

    The following is from an e-mail sent to me by a person who follows Lockerbie closely and who, for reasons which I understand and respect, wishes to remain anonymous:

    "I have no doubt that the plane descended pretty well vertically and that essentially destruction occurred instantaneously at cruising altitude,

    albeit with the main wing roots and fuselage diving more or less in one piece.

    For that not to be true the radar traces would have had to be totally falsified and so would the cockpit voice recorder (unscrambled by the AAIB) which showed instantaneous cut out except for a momentary unexplained noise as the machine stopped working.

    No time even for an expletive by the pilot. The distribution of the wreckage and the bodies confirm this."

  29. And that contradicts what I have been trying to tell you just how, exactly?

    However, I have no idea how you define "first" on either debris trail, or how you might imagine the cockpit was in such a position.

  30. sfm

    "It is just clear and well-defined enough that the sh** might hit the fan - or in other words - that the press wakes up, with headlines that just might moving voters."

    The press had every reason to remain alert on Lockerbie and chose to fall asleep on it. We should wonder why that was.

    Had the press hounded politicians for the truth behind Lockerbie, had it demanded answers when the SCCRC raised those six grounds, had it insisted that appeal could not be abandoned with so many questions unanswered then we would not still be posting on this blog demanding justice.

    The press, together with the political and judicial establishments chose to ignore the facts on Lockerbie despite having a clear duty to hold these establishments to account. The press/media are therefore, in my view at least, as guilty as the political and judicial establishments for had they challenged on Lockerbie as a body we would have got to the truth a long time ago.

  31. Elementary!

    The first bit to fall from the plane will be the first bit to land, commencing the debris trail.

  32. Oh dear. That "isn't even wrong", as they say. Go back and read the AAIB report again.

  33. Hello Jo G,
    nice to see you back!
    I wish I could disagree with something you wrote, just to hear more from you. But I can't.
    But for a press development "hope springs eternal".

  34. "Elementary!

    The first bit to fall from the plane will be the first bit to land, commencing the debris trail."

    I think it is only fair to call this "David's Law for Falling Objects".

    So if we go up in a plane in 10 km's height and every second throw out one of below items, in the given order:

    A feather
    A piece of paper
    A pair of G-string panties
    A magazine
    An umbrella (opened)
    A T-shirt
    A coat
    A book
    A suitcase filled with
    A suitcase filled with gold
    A 1 gram rock
    A 1 kilo rock
    A person

    they will, according to David's Law hit the ground in that order.


    - - -

    That 'isn't even wrong', as they say.
    LOL! I like that one!

  35. The best thing to do now is leave the whole thing unless new charges are made. The problems that have occurred are not all the result of Scottish justice and are to some extent caused by individuals who investigated it. One example of this perspective is the Mebo timer fragment evidence which I contend could have been challenged more effectively if certain individuals were not involved. Mr Megrahi had a few years with his family after being released on compassionate grounds and so there isn't any benefit rehashing faulty conjectures. The bottom line is that the Libyans were lied to when they were told he would get a fair trial and Gaddafi was a stooge for handing him over. Having said that, even Gaddafi is dead now and unless new charges are bought, let the matter rest. The golfer should have gone to the press in my opinion but he obviously believed in the system too much.

  36. Also the simulation is wrong because when the cock-pit detached it collided with and knocked off engine 3.

  37. And even if that's true, that affects what I have been trying to point out to you just how, exactly.

    Look as the very start of the break-up. Look VERY carefully.

  38. Elementary

    To reference an inaccurate depiction of the break-up sequence (and the authors made no claim to real time or accuracy) of the plane, as evidence, is blatantly ‘not even wrong’!

    And to simply say, ‘but look at the hole’, is more desperate than your outline pencil line drawings!

  39. I wasn't talking about the hole. And I'm not the one who's "desperate".

    How are you getting on with the "Fundamental Error" article? Do you like the pictures?