Friday, 22 August 2014

Why so little pressure from British and American public on their governments to investigate Lockerbie properly?

[Five years ago, the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi on 20 August 2009 was still reverberating in the media. Professor Hans Koechler, an international observer appointed by the United Nations at the Lockerbie trial, issued a statement approving of the release, and contributed an article to The Independent. The latter, as reproduced at the time on this blog, reads as follows:]

I am always surprised when people refer to Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber. Even if he is guilty – something which, personally, I do not believe – he would only be a Lockerbie bomber, just one of many people who carried out a crime which would have taken a large network of people and lots of money to carry out. It amazes me that the British and American governments act as if the investigation into the bombing is somehow complete.

But I welcome the release of Megrahi, because I firmly believe that he is innocent of the charges made against him. Believe me, if I thought he was guilty I would not be pleased to see him released from jail.

His decision to drop his appeal, however, is deeply suspicious – I believe Megrahi made that decision under duress. Under Scottish law he did not need to abandon his appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds. So why did he do it? It makes no sense that he would suddenly let it go.

In my time as the UN's observer at Megrahi's trial, I watched a case unfold that was based on circumstantial evidence. The indictment against him and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah went to great lengths to explain how they supposedly planted a bomb on Flight 103, and yet Fhimah was acquitted of all the charges against him. It made no sense that Megrahi was guilty when Fhimah was acquitted.

The prosecution produced key witnesses that lacked credibility or had incentives to bear false witness against Megrahi. Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who supposedly sold him the clothes that went around the bomb, had been fêted by the Scottish police who took him fishing. The Americans paid him cash following his testimony. The weakness of that testimony would have been a key component of Megrahi's appeal.

We will probably never really know who caused the Lockerbie bombing. So much key information was withheld from the trial. A luggage storage room used by Pan Am at Heathrow was broken into on the night of the bombing, and yet this information was withheld. The British have yet satisfactorily to explain why.

I want to know when the bomb was placed on the plane and by whom. We have to look more closely into the "London theory" – that the bomb was placed on the plane at Heathrow and not in Malta.

It would be childish to be satisfied with the conviction of just one person for a crime that clearly involved a large number of people. I find it very difficult to understand why there seems to be so little pressure from the British and American public on their governments to investigate the bombing properly.

The UK regularly talks of the need to pursue all terrorist atrocities. Yet how can the Government assure the public they really believe that, when they have virtually abandoned their investigation into the worst terrorist attack in the country's history?

We have to know what happened and the only way is a full public inquiry, either mandated by the House of Commons or by an investigative commission voted for by the UN's General Assembly. Time is of the essence. This crime is already 21 years old. To find out the truth we must act now.


  1. I think this an excellent article even though it raises the burying of Manly's evidence but, unfortunately, fails to mention that of Bedford's.

    The thing that strikes me as a tad confusing, however, is that Prof Koechler (whom I respect, by the way) ends with supporting the call for an inquiry yet is on record as frequently dismissing such a course of action as being inadequate and that the only effective solution is a third appeal. This confuses me somewhat.

    No matter. As far as JFM is concerned though, we take the view that attack on all fronts is the way forward, hence the JFM PE1370 call for an inquiry before the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, the JFM 9 allegations of criminality (which are in the hands of Police Scotland), and the recent lodging of a third appeal with the SCCRC by members of both the UK bereaved and the Megrahi family. I would be most entertained to see how inventive COPFS and the Justice Directorate manage to talk their mutual ways out of that corner!

    I can't account for the mindsets of the likes of COPFS or the Justice Directorate, but, we have given them their chances. If they don't have pick-axes to dig themselves out of their own deep-freeze, we are more than willing to lend them a hand.

    JFM is not going away. Ever.


  2. Although I despise the Romans, apparently General Marcus Antonius once said something along the lines of; "If nothing seems to be happening in a battle, ATTACK!" I like that mentality.



  3. Living with the "Lockerbie Affair", 2014, only in german language:

    Ist das Ende der "Lockerbie-Klimax" bald erreicht ? Mit der Begleitung unter der Schluss Dynamik von "Ravel's Boléro" wird MEBO Ltd. & Edwin Bollier, den Triumpf feiern, wenn das Crown Office in Edinburgh, das angeblich in Scotland aufgefundene MST-13 Timerfragment (PT-35) zur Nachuntersuchung, an das Forensische Institut der Kantonspolizei, in Zürich, aushändigen muss.

    Nachdem am 17. März 2014, das Schweizerische Polizeidepartement (EJPD) eine Ermächtigung für eine Strafuntersuchung in Sachen (MST-13 Timer, Lockerbie-Affäre) gegen einen Staatsbeamten in der Schweiz erteilte, besteht endlich die Möglichkeit, dass das von der Schweiz gewährte Rechtshilfeverfahren an das Crown Office in Scotland (mit Gegenrecht, Art. 8 IRSG) rechtlich benützt werden kann, um das entscheidende Beweisstück eines MST-13 Timerfragments, in der Schweiz forensisch auf Sprengstoff und andere Merkmale prüfen zu lassen.

    Diese Prüfung entscheidet ob das MST-13 Timerfragment von einem, nach Libyen gelieferten Timer, oder von einem Prototypen MST-13 Timer, oder von einer Fälschung, abstammt - und kann für das fragwürdige schottische Urteil, gegen Abdel Baset und Libyen, zukünftig in einem 'Appeal', von grosser bestimmender Bedeutung sein.

    Bei der damaligen schweizerischen Überprüfung der Formerfordernissen (IRSG; SR 351.1) für die Erteilung der Internationalen Rechtshilfe, am 30. Oktober 1990, hat das Schweizerische Bundesamt für Polizeiwesen (BAP) es verpasst, das "Corpus Delicti" (PT-35) zuvor in der Schweiz forensisch prüfen zu lassen.

    Wie bekannt -wurde das Timerfragment zur privaten Firma Siemens in München zur Prüfung und zum unnötigen zersägen in zwei Teile gebracht (PT-35/b) und (DP-31/a)!
    Übermittlung von Beweismitteln und Informationen ist in Art, 67a IRSG geregelt. Danach kann eine Strafvervolgungsbehörde Beweismittel verlangen, welche sie für ihre eigenen Ermittlungen braucht. Voraussetzung dazu ist jedoch, dass in der Schweiz ebenfalls eine Strafuntersuchung eingeleitet ist, was heute der Fall ist...

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. Telecommunication Switzerland. Webpage:

  4. The Swiss supervisory authority over the Federal Prosecutor's Office (AB-BA)- now has the means to do so to resolve through the guaranteed, mutual legal assistance, the Scottish fraud over the crucial piece of evidence (PT-35)!
    Text from above, only in german language.
    Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd