Following yesterday’s Exaro News disclosures, the story has been picked up in a good number of the daily newspapers, including The Independent’s Egyptian is ‘the prime suspect for Lockerbie bombing’; the Belfast Telegraph’s Lockerbie bombing: Evidence against Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was faked, claims report; The Scotsman’s Lockerbie suspect to be named after ‘CIA cover-up’; and The Herald’s CIA 'interfered in police probe into Lockerbie'.
None of today’s articles adds anything of significance to what appeared yesterday. The Scottish Government trotted out its usual mantra (as reported in The Herald):
"Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law - Mr al Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
"As was made clear by the Justice Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, it remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal which Ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
John Ashton has this morning posted the following on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website:
"A number of press reports on Operation Bird, including the original one published by Exaro News and the one in today’s Scotsman, claim that the Bird investigation would have been central to Abdelbaset’s second appeal. This is completely untrue. The investigation was commissioned in the run up to Abdelbaset’s first appeal, but its findings were not used because the investigation failed to turn up any hard evidence. It was rejected by the SCCRC for the same reason and because some of the findings were contradicted by known facts. For these reasons it would have played no part in Abdelbaset’s second appeal. My reservations about the investigation are set out in yesterday’s blog post."
None of today’s articles adds anything of significance to what appeared yesterday. The Scottish Government trotted out its usual mantra (as reported in The Herald):
"Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law - Mr al Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
"As was made clear by the Justice Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, it remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal which Ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
John Ashton has this morning posted the following on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website:
"A number of press reports on Operation Bird, including the original one published by Exaro News and the one in today’s Scotsman, claim that the Bird investigation would have been central to Abdelbaset’s second appeal. This is completely untrue. The investigation was commissioned in the run up to Abdelbaset’s first appeal, but its findings were not used because the investigation failed to turn up any hard evidence. It was rejected by the SCCRC for the same reason and because some of the findings were contradicted by known facts. For these reasons it would have played no part in Abdelbaset’s second appeal. My reservations about the investigation are set out in yesterday’s blog post."
Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law - Mr al Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
ReplyDeleteAs was made clear by the Justice Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament last year, it remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal which Ministers would be entirely comfortable with.
So, just as an intellectual exercise, what is an interfering busybody supposed to do?
Just suppose someone with no locus in the case, not related to the accused and not related to any of the victims, were to examine and analyse the original forensic findings and show, beyond doubt, that the conclusions on which the court based its verdict were simply wrong? That on the contrary, the evidence proved beyond doubt that the convicted man was innocent?
I'm not talking maybe, here. I'm not talking probably either. I'm talking definitely. Definitely, absolutely innocent.
Now if the convicted man was still languishing in prison, it would be simple. The busybody could approach the man's legal team and present the evidence, and the legal team could put in an application to the SCCRC. Simples.
But he's not. He's dead. And his family is in no position to be approaching the SCCRC, even if the interfering busybody had the remotest idea how to contact them, or even spoke their language. They are a non event. It is as if the wrongly convicted man had no family - which must happen in some instances anyway.
So how is this to be advanced? Let us suppose that the families of the murder victims are all quite happy with the conviction and don't even want to look at evidence suggesting it was obtained on false premises. And in any case, mounting an appeal is an expensive business. Why should this be the responsibility of the relatives of the murder victims? It's ridiculous.
The fact is that the evidence was wrongly interpreted in the first place, and a correct interpretation of it shows that the convicted man was innocent. And our justice system is determined that it will not even look at this evidence unless specific people who may not have any interest or desire to become involved approach the SCCRC.
This is, or ought to be, a howling scandal.
"... it remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal ..."
ReplyDeleteI recall that Al-Megrahi's family are not likely to go through with this. But is there a deadline, if somebody should change their mind?
MISSION LIFE WITH LOCKERBIE, 2013 -- Go on ground to new facts... (google translation, german/english):
ReplyDeleteDear youngest son Motasem Al Megrahi - it breaks our heart what was done to your Dad. He is the 271 victims of the Lockerbie Tragedy...
We know that your Father, Abdelbaset and LIbya has nothing to do with the bombing of PanAm 103, and your Dad, was never in Tony Gauci's boutique in Malta !
Mr. Motasem please convince your family that the - appeal granted (2007) by the Scottish Criminal Cases Reappeal Commission (SCCRC) - to activate new. By supporting our crucial (MEBO proofs) the success is guaranteed and the name of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Libya will be cleaned.
The whole "Lockerbie Affair" has been built on a Scottish Miscarriage of Justice...
We ask ALLAH AKBAR that he gives force to the whole Family of Al-Megrahi, to endure this sad fate.
Our compassion
Mahnaz and Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage: www.lockerbie.ch
Why would Abu Talb take a merchant ship to England. Whatis wrong with the ferry. I note that following Talb's arrest in Sweden his associate Martin Imandi took the ferry to England to lay low. (see Leppard).
ReplyDeleteMy mate John Ashton makes a small but significant error - Abu Talb left Malta on the 26/10/88 not the 16/12/88 (obviously a typo) which was (by coincidence or not) the day of the "Autumn Leaves" arrests. Abu Talb had been in Cyprus and seems likely to have met Dalkamoni who had flown from Frankfurt AFTER the arrival of Khreesat on the 1/10/88. Was the primary suitcase handed over then? I don't know. As I remarked in my article "The Mysterious Life and Death of Ian Spiro" Abu Talb's relationship to Lockerbie, if any, is unproven.
What happened to the Al-Jazeera documentary by the way?