[What follows is the text of a letter submitted to The Times by Dr Jim Swire, but not selected for publication, following a report in that newspaper on 4 October:]
In an article by-lined Mike Wade in your Scottish edition for Friday, October 4th, the last sentence reads 'a spokesman (for the Crown Office) said the remarks attributed by Dr Swire to the Lord Advocate at the meeting in London were "simply untrue"’.
Prior to that London meeting, called by the Crown Office to explain new moves in the Lockerbie investigation, I had requested and was refused permission by the Crown Office to attend with a lawyer. A small number of relatives turned up therefore without professional support. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet him. On the Lord Advocate's side there was the Lord Advocate himself, a posse of lawyers from the Crown Office, several policemen and even some characters from the US embassy.
However, indignant at the failure of the Crown Office to take any action to investigate reasons why there might be very serious problems with that part of the investigation already made public through the trial process, and on which further investigation must clearly rely, I kept asking Mr Mulholland why the information concerning a break-in at Heathrow 16 hours before Lockerbie had been withheld from the defence and of course the Zeist court.
After several repeats of the question he did reply that he had wondered why that had happened but had not been able to find out. I have now checked with another relative who was present who agrees that Mr Mulholland's replies to me were just as reported by me. Of course we were but laymen among all those professionals, nevertheless our integrity is important to us. If correctly reported, the Crown Office might now like to consider a public apology, but if so, the real reason for the witholding of this vitally important information from the court should now be discovered and made public.
Patrick Shearer was one of those in the Lord Advocate's team and subsequently at my request supplied me with a letter (...) explaining the chronology of the availability of the break-in evidence. This showed conclusively that the information had been available to the Scottish police from February 1989 and to the Crown Office from 1999, yet still was denied to the defence. The reasons for the witholding of that information were not given by either DCC Shearer nor of course Mr Mulholland.
When the break-in was finally made public, it was not because of any relenting by the Crown Office but because a Heathrow night security officer approached the defence team after the verdict, to find out why the evidence that he had given to police concerning what he described as the worst security breach he had come across in all his years at the airport, had been ignored by the court.
This is not the only occasion on which remarks attributed to the Crown Office have been defamatory as to our integrity in seeking the truth.
If this phrase "simply untrue" was indeed used in the way expressed in your article one might consider civil action. However, such an action might distract public attention from the main issue, the appalling mistakes made by the Crown Office, their forensic and police investigators in the management of the investigation and trial of this dreadful case.
[In a dispute between the Crown Office and Dr Jim Swire, supported by Rev John Mosey, over what was said at a particular meeting, I know whose version I find the more worthy of credence.]
In an article by-lined Mike Wade in your Scottish edition for Friday, October 4th, the last sentence reads 'a spokesman (for the Crown Office) said the remarks attributed by Dr Swire to the Lord Advocate at the meeting in London were "simply untrue"’.
Prior to that London meeting, called by the Crown Office to explain new moves in the Lockerbie investigation, I had requested and was refused permission by the Crown Office to attend with a lawyer. A small number of relatives turned up therefore without professional support. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet him. On the Lord Advocate's side there was the Lord Advocate himself, a posse of lawyers from the Crown Office, several policemen and even some characters from the US embassy.
However, indignant at the failure of the Crown Office to take any action to investigate reasons why there might be very serious problems with that part of the investigation already made public through the trial process, and on which further investigation must clearly rely, I kept asking Mr Mulholland why the information concerning a break-in at Heathrow 16 hours before Lockerbie had been withheld from the defence and of course the Zeist court.
After several repeats of the question he did reply that he had wondered why that had happened but had not been able to find out. I have now checked with another relative who was present who agrees that Mr Mulholland's replies to me were just as reported by me. Of course we were but laymen among all those professionals, nevertheless our integrity is important to us. If correctly reported, the Crown Office might now like to consider a public apology, but if so, the real reason for the witholding of this vitally important information from the court should now be discovered and made public.
Patrick Shearer was one of those in the Lord Advocate's team and subsequently at my request supplied me with a letter (...) explaining the chronology of the availability of the break-in evidence. This showed conclusively that the information had been available to the Scottish police from February 1989 and to the Crown Office from 1999, yet still was denied to the defence. The reasons for the witholding of that information were not given by either DCC Shearer nor of course Mr Mulholland.
When the break-in was finally made public, it was not because of any relenting by the Crown Office but because a Heathrow night security officer approached the defence team after the verdict, to find out why the evidence that he had given to police concerning what he described as the worst security breach he had come across in all his years at the airport, had been ignored by the court.
This is not the only occasion on which remarks attributed to the Crown Office have been defamatory as to our integrity in seeking the truth.
If this phrase "simply untrue" was indeed used in the way expressed in your article one might consider civil action. However, such an action might distract public attention from the main issue, the appalling mistakes made by the Crown Office, their forensic and police investigators in the management of the investigation and trial of this dreadful case.
[In a dispute between the Crown Office and Dr Jim Swire, supported by Rev John Mosey, over what was said at a particular meeting, I know whose version I find the more worthy of credence.]
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013 (google translation, german/english):
ReplyDeleteThe very big opportunity for "Scotland's attached SHAME" and for solicitor general, Mrs. Lesley Thomson, in the truth finding - about the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie - is the core question, for a connection, or for not a connection with the former 'Libyan regime' ?: Has the real black carbonized MST-13 timer fragment (PT-35) 9 layers, or 8 layers of fiberglass ? With 9 layers of fiberglass, the link to Libya is justified !
Has Lesley Thomson, Scotland's solicitor general since 2011, fear of the truth from the forenic result, about the real black carbonized MST-13 Timerfragment (PT/35) ?
It is puzzling that Lesley Thomson, not will risked - to give an order to the new 'Lockerbie Investigation operational team', led by Detective Superintendent Michael Dalgleish, for a new forensically examine the crucial piece of evidence against Libya, the MST 13 timer fragment (PT-35) ? The cost and time efford are very low...
Urgent demand:
The supposedly discovered in Lockerbie ultimate piece of evidence "PT-35", must in the presence of specialists and a Swiss police officer from ex (BUPO) and Ing Ulrich Lumpert - Edwin Bollier (MEBO Ltd.) inter alia are forensically investigated the composition of 8 or 9 layers of fiberglass.
9 layers of fiberglass indicate it was from a MST-13 timer, wo was supplied to Libya, from MEBO Ltd.
8 layers of fiberglass shows it was from a "prototype circuit board", which had to do nothing with Libya !
It is high time that before 25 Anniversary of the "Lockerbie Tragedy", an important part of the truth comes to light...
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland. Webpage:
MISSION LOCKERBIE, 2013:
ReplyDeleteA delegation under Solicitor General, Mrs Lesley Thomson QC, attends Lockerbie bombing 25th anniversary events at Syracuse University in New York; in remembrance of the 35 students from the University who lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
Please QC, Mrs Lesley Thomson, give you before the 25th anniversary of the Lockerbie-Tragedy, an order to the new 'Lockerbie Investigation operational team', led by Detective Superintendent Michael Dalgleish, for a new forensically examine the crucial piece of evidence against Libya, the MST 13 timer fragment (PT-35) ? The cost and time efford are very low...
You have as participants in this sad ceremony at New York, a honest and quieter conscience...
Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Switzerland, webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
Jim Swire asks Mulholland
ReplyDelete- 'why evidence of a break-in at Heathrow airport in 1988, the night before the bombing, had not been presented at the trial'
According to JS the reply is:
‘You know, I wondered why it wasn’t available, but I haven’t been able to find out’
Now we get a statement by "a spokesman" for the Crown Office that the remarks attributed by Dr Swire to the Lord Advocate at the meeting in London were 'simply untrue'.
And there it ends. 'I didn't say that.'
There wouldn't be a single adult in Scotland expecting The Crown ever to provide answers to:
'So what _did_ you say to Dr. Swire, Mr. Mulholland?' or
'What _would then be_ the answer to Dr. Swire's question, Mr. Mulholland?'
In political cases the presence of professional support is a mixed blessing, because their very professionalism can inhibit their actions.
ReplyDeleteFor example, would a professional person have repeatedly asked the Lord Advocate the same question until they got an answer?
And repeatedly asking the one pertinent question until you get an answer from those in authority is the effective way to make progress.
That said it is unfortunate that Dr Swire didn’t also ask the Lord Advocate to repeat his inadequate answer and then insist it be minuted to avoid the Lord Advocate denying what he said.
"In political cases the presence of professional support is a mixed blessing, because their very professionalism can inhibit their actions."
ReplyDeleteWell, possibly, see below - but what is going on here?? Jim Swire writes:
"I had requested and was refused permission by the Crown Office to attend with a lawyer. A small number of relatives turned up therefore without professional support."
Absurd. I have never in my entire life, not even in Asia, heard about any meeting where people of a particular profession were excluded.
By all means, the _presence_ of particular persons or professions may strongly influence what will be _said_, but an explicit a-priori exclusion by profession? Unthinkable.
We must be misinformed. Or, I bet that Jim Swire would not have anything documentable.
Absurdities would not end there.
_Why_ would lawyers be excluded?
To my knowledge, lawyers are simply people with a background that qualifies them in judicial matters and procedures. Shouldn't The Crown itself want such people to attend?
Could we also imagine your health authorities holding meetings where doctors were specifically excluded?
If it was Denmark or Thailand I'd with near certainty know what to think: Jim Swire must be misrepresenting the case.
For Scotland? You tell me.
"For example, would a professional person have repeatedly asked the Lord Advocate the same question until they got an answer?"
Hopefully, otherwise we are better off without 'professionals'. But this is not a professional issue, but a matter of simple common sense.
A bomb in a plane. A break-in to the luggage area in the hours before. The result of an immediate investigation not evidence in a later trial?
"And repeatedly asking the one pertinent question until you get an answer from those in authority is the effective way to make progress."
Exactly.
"That said it is unfortunate that Dr Swire didn’t also ask the Lord Advocate to repeat his inadequate answer and then insist it be minuted to avoid the Lord Advocate denying what he said."
Being well into absurdities anything can be suggested.
Mulholland should have written all answers twice, have yelled them so they could be heard outside too, they should have been recorded by two independent TV channels etc. etc.
Let's just imagine that Jim Swire is at least man of average professional and human quality.
He will be unprepared for dealing with shameless people who evade and deny (through 'spokesmen' whenever possible), and who is everything else than their profession should make them.
Your democracy over there has brought you a self-sufficient system which is beyond being held accountable, does not even have to answer questions, is involved in acts which everywhere else would see heads roll on a massive scale, and makes statements to the press through spokesmen, which are printed by an obedient press.
No, you will never get an answer from your Crown or the police.
Who do you think you are?
I find it odd that “a Heathrow night security officer approached the defence team after the verdict” and described the break-in “as the worst security breach he had come across in all his years at the airport”!
ReplyDeleteBecause:-
•If a night security officer was brave enough to risk their job by advising the defence team about the break-in, why not before or during the trial?
•And the description of the break-in as the “worst security breach ever” is melodramatic, because it was immediately reported and investigated and concluded with a ‘no further action required’.
Presumably because the authorities had identified an unofficial but innocent explanation for the break-in!
Looking for evidence at Heathrow makes sense if you believe the bomb wasn’t boarded in Malta, but then again it should also incite doubt about the official ‘bomb’ explanation if the authorities and MSM repeatedly say it was boarded in Malta?
ReplyDeleteReading through my own posting above, I realize that a couple of the statements, like "We must be misinformed. Or, I bet that Jim Swire would not have anything documentable" could be misinterpreted as doubt in JS's reliability.
Nothing I have read or seen so far would generate anything else than respect for this man.
What I meant was, that The Crown would be smart enough to not in writing come up with these "no lawyer" demands. That will have been phonecalls. With 'spokesmen'.
Just guessing. Even though it would not really surprise me if the Scots lived in a country where such absurd "lawyers not allowed"-conditions could be made in the open.
I know people here who record absolutely every conversation they have, on a 24/7 basis, and they all say it has been absolutely essential for they own survival in their business position.
With the dreadful short memories we see among the people JfM deal with (with several recent examples) I'd hope that someday somebody would wire Dr. Swire and others.
- - -
Dave, do you know the saying "If the only tool you have is a hammer, all issues will look like a nail"?
Would that be analogue to be saying "If your theory is that a broken cargo door took down Panam 103 you will see the support for that theory in every possible matter related to the Lockerbie disaster"? :-)
Dave said Presumably because the authorities had identified an unofficial but innocent explanation for the break-in!
ReplyDeletePresumably is a very important word there Dave!!
Without presuming anything, it is without question that had there been any investigation proving an innocent or 'unnofficial' (whatever that might entail)explanation, then why haven't we been told?
Neither is it incumbent on someone to ensure they have their evidence heard in court. Perhaps Mr Manly thought the evidence he provided - at the time - would be elicited before the court.
As it turned out, and perhaps once hearing the verdict and how there had been no reference throughout the trial to his evidence, Mr Manly thought it somewhat odd?
In any scenario that can be construed, and given how the other evidence from Heathrow was irrationally brushed aside, it is wholly unacceptable that Mr Manly's evidence was not brought before the court and an satisfactory explanation has never been forthcoming.
We know that Mr Manly's evidence of the security breach was passed to the central Lockerbie investigaton in late Jan 1989, and was never heard of again until 2001. What then happened to this evidence after Jan 1989 nobody seems to be able, or want to, give a clear and concise answer to.
The break-in was reported to the police by the BAA authorities, precisely because they thought it was something the police needed to know about. Not the behaviour of people who have identified an innocent explanation.
ReplyDeleteManly expected to be called to give evidence. He was surprised not to be called, but only realised how significant that omission was when he read about the detailes of the convictino in the papers. That's when he contacted the defence team.
Both perfectly rational and unsurprising developments, in the circumstances. It's the behaviour of the investigators that's questionable, not the behaviour of BAA or Ray Manly.
Assuming and presuming doesn't get anyone very far with this case.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI used the word presumably, meaning most likely rather than definitely, because I do not definitely know what happened, but can make a very good guess.
And because the alternative to an investigation that revealed an unofficial but innocent explanation is an investigation that revealed a bomb plot that was ignored!
An unofficial but innocent explanation for the break-in (or break-out) was due to workers breaking the rules and taking a short cut, breaking a padlock to do so and immediately reporting it to security, but saying they ‘found it like it’ so that it can be replaced by security.
Security knows unofficially that it was the workers but to avoid the hassle of an official investigation, involving loads of paperwork and interviews, decide to just replace the padlock and tell the workers not to do it again.
Only in hindsight following 103 does this ‘not working to the rule book’ look far more sinister than it is.
I'll say it again. The break-in was reported to the police by BAA. They thought it was something the police needed to know about. It was the police who didn't bother to follow it up.
ReplyDeleteThe breach that occurred was from 'landside' to the secure 'airside' area of the airport. Not at all the other way around, which was known for workers to do when taking a short cut.
ReplyDeleteDuring the daytime the shortcut was, on occassion, utilised by workers. This was achieved not by breaking a padlock, but by simply using the doors as a shortcut.
This breach was reported around midnight and Mr Manly noted that the padlock (on the landside portion of the doors) had been 'cut like butter'. The worst security breach he could recall during his time as a security guard at Heathrow.
Rolfe is dissembling by not saying whether the break-in was reported after the break-in or after the crash – a significant difference.
ReplyDeleteAlso if security was as porous as stated, then why would contract killers devise a complicated bomb plot to by-pass non-existent security?
Airport security (same as pub landlords), do not call the police if they can handle a problem themselves, because they want to avoid bad publicity and police questions about their own competence in running the business!
ReplyDeleteHowever if a problem is serious they do call the police or at least report the matter for the record or a crime number!
Common sense tells us that airport security would not inform the police about a broken padlock without investigating it themselves first, because it’s their job to do so!
Therefore I’m sure airport security did investigate and concluded there was as an unofficial but innocent explanation and logged it as no further action required.
No doubt after the crash the police made enquires and were advised about the break-in, but also advised it was not considered sinister.
Of course they could have launched their own official investigation and JfM are right to ask why they didn’t.
But to think that professional contract killer/s would devise such a hair-brained plot to plant a bomb to get revenge is a sad case of clutching at straws.
For example, surely it would make more sense to ‘break-in’ by going through the doors using a key, rather than carry a gas cylinder and blow torch to cut through the padlock ‘like butter’ and then leaving the remains to be immediately detected - and the plot foiled?
Alternatively leaving a bomb in a crowed foyer would be more horrific and straight forward!
Dave thinks he would have done it differently, so it can only have happened his way. Is this a whole new logical fallacy?
ReplyDeleteHere's a hint, Dave. You get a lot further examining the evidence than vaguely imagining what you might have done in the same situation.
The blue Tourister was on top of the bomb suitcase. There was no suitcase under the bomb suitcase. Sidhu didn't move the cases that were loaded in the interline shed.
That's it. That's the route of the bomb established right there. You can free-associate till the sun goes cold, but it won't change that.
"For example, surely it would make more sense to ‘break-in’ by going through the doors using a key..."
ReplyDeleteYou have proved something! (Board rules unfortunately don't allow me to say what it is)