Private Eye on the on-going Lockerbie investigation

[This is the headline over an item posted today on John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury website.  It reads as follows:]


The following brief article appears in the current issue of Private Eye. My [ie John Ashton’s] comments follow.


Disappointment among the relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie atrocity: Ed Miliband is not blocking [sic; presumably “backing” is what is meant] their call for a public inquiry following the release “on compassionate grounds” of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi in 2009.

The Labour leader has written to Pam Dix, whose brother was one of the 270 who died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the skies in December 1988, saying that while criminal investigations continue “nothing should be done to undermine them”.

Miliband must be aware that the Levenson inquiry is doing an extraordinary job unearthing material that may aid a now very active criminal investigation, where hacks, police and a member of the armed forces have all been arrested. But how “active” is the Lockerbie investigation?

The Scottish Crown Office told the Eye that six legal staff “have been involved and continue to be involved”. But when asked whether anyone who had spoken to the two forensic experts who have cast doubt on the scientific evidence used to incriminate Megrahi, a spokeswoman said: “As the investigation remains live, it would not be appropriate to offer further comment.” In other words, er, no.

Miliband appears to be adopting the same position towards the UK’s biggest terrorist mass murder as the rest of the political establishment.

The fact that the Lockerbie investigation remains open was, of course, recently underlined by the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s visit to Tripoli with FBI director Robert Mueller.   Back in December, Mulholland said: “I think I would be failing in my duty if I didn’t properly seek to take advantage of the opportunity that has opened up with the fall of Gaddafi.” However, it seems that he does not regard it as a failure of duty to ignore the two scientists (Dr Jess Cawley and Dr Chris McArdle), whose work demonstrates that the circuit board fragment, PT/35b, could not have been from one of the 20 timers supplied to Libya by the Swiss firm Mebo. This new evidence destroys the case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, yet the Crown is acting like nothing has happened.

1000 days of shame

[What follows is the text of a letter submitted by Dr Jim Swire to The Herald two days ago, but not (yet) published:]

On 27th February this year a book was launched by Edinburgh publisher Birlinn called Megrahi: You are my Jury.

Earlier that very morning, just before the actual launch, 10 Downing Street, which could not have seen the book, issued a statement saying the book was an insult to the [Lockerbie] relatives. I was in Edinburgh reading the 'insult' for myself. Do read pages 355-362 in particular. Just who was insulted by whom?

No 10's statement was self evidently made in ignorance of the book's contents. Among many other issues raised, the book shows for all who will look, that there is responsible and repeatable scientific evidence that a fragment of circuit board designated as 'PT35b' at trial and found within a Scottish police evidence bag could not after all have been a piece of a Libyan owned bomb timer mechanism as the court believed.

There are of course many other reasons for doubting the safety of the Scottish verdict against Megrahi, but of this one tiny fragment even the US FBI's Edward Marshman, deeply involved, along with the Dumfries and Galloway police in assembling evidence for the Zeist court has said publicly that he believes that without this fragment the case could not have been brought to trial.

It is indeed a thousand days since Mr Megrahi was released from Greenock under a provision for compassion for sick prisoners which has become available within our Scottish legal system. I am not a Catholic, but like Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of that Church in Scotland I believe we should be proud of that provision in our law. In a letter to your paper on 9th August 2010, I wrote:

'It is as the Cardinal says: there is a 'clash of cultures'[between the US and Scotland] and like him I want to live in a culture capable of compassion. I believe that the Church of Scotland also supported compassionate release of Mr Megrahi.'

However our First Minister, as well as Kenny MacAskill have both repeatedly claimed during the 1000 days since his release that they see no reason to doubt the Zeist verdict against Mr Megrahi. The Holyrood Parliament heatedly discussed the release, stalked by an elephant they could not see: on its flank, the words was he guilty or not?' Perhaps it was the animal's trunk which nearly brought down the roof of the debating chamber, since it had already been stalkng them for so many years.

I think we can no longer tolerate ignorance about this terrible case. Currently we do not even know, because we have not investigated it, how it was that a piece of circuit board, so important that even the FBI say the case could not have run without it came to be found inside a Scottish police evidence bag, the label for which had also been illegally changed.

Let me say to you, Mr Cameron, through this gallant newspaper that the book Megrahi: You are my Jury is not an insult to this British relative of one of the dead, indeed the book should be read by you, your staff and all your legal advisers. Amongst much else, it tells us that a fragment of circuit board on which, even according to the Americans the whole trial depended, could not have originated from a Libyan timer. Feel free to get the scientific proof of this repeated. Do please go and ask all your Government Departments to release for public inspection all documents relevant to this case which have been made subject of 'PII certificates' over the years. The last time I wrote to you directly, on 29th February 2012 all I got was a reply from the Foreign Office dated 4th May 2012: was that perchance an insult to a relative? But you are of course a very busy and honourable man.

Meanwhile Mr Salmond please launch an inquiry into how this case came to be compromised by the spurious belief that we had evidence of the use of a Libyan timer, when in fact we did not?. Don't you want to know how that fragment got into a Scottish police evidence bag? Don't you want to know if there is any connection between that and what Tam Dalyell records in his forward to Ashton's earlier work Cover up of Convenience, (Mainstream publishing, Edinburgh, 2001)? '....American agents were swarming around the area [of the Lockerbie crash site]...... the [Scottish] police were doing nothing to stop them.'

To Mr Cameron I would say remember the disgrace of the IRA wrongful convictions under English law. Even those who do look at the facts before making judgements sometimes get things dreadfully wrong. In this case you haven't even looked at the facts, have you?

To Mr Salmond: your people of Scotland must be allowed to see whether the Zeist court went dreadfully wrong or not. The more independent we become, the greater will become their need to be sure that their justice system is free of all political interference.

As for some of us, the relatives of those brutally murdered at Lockerbie, we are tired of being treated as if we were ignorant children. We are not going away, we have a right to the truth. My lay advice would be to bite the bullet both of you now, before it cripples your careers. We have seen enough of party political point scoring in Holyrood and Westminster. Call in the experts, look at the facts: all we want is the truth, and to protect us all better in the future.

Meanwhile Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond consider this please.... if we are correct in believing that the story of a Libyan bomb launched by Megrahi from Malta is fiction, then to protect that fiction would be to protect the real culprits who carried out this terrible action. Is that really what you want to be associated with in the annals of history? These are indeed a thousand days of shame.

So how about a deep breath and having a fresh look at all the facts? Ashton's title claims that we - the public -  are now Megrahi's jury. To be an effective jury, we need first to hear all the facts of the case laid out fair and square before us: are you afraid to allow that to happen? If so why?

[A letter submitted by Dr Swire to The Scotsman and also as yet unpublished reads as follows:]

On Monday David Cameron issued a stinging attack on Mr Salmond's Government over the compassionate release of Abdel Baset al Megrahi just 1000 days ago.

I had the privilege of petitioning Mr Kenny MacAskill before his release decision claiming that Mr Megrahi should be released at once.

I had two reasons for doing that.

First, as a doctor I knew that he was dying and had an incurable and extremely painful future before him and, guilty or innocent, compassion alone dictated that he should now live out his remaining time with his loving wife and family. I believe that his survival for almost exactly 1000 days after MacAskill's decision is due basically to the love and care of his family replacing his isolation from them in Greenock prison, however humane his care was there. In addition advanced chemotherapy, including Abiraterone available in Libya, though not Scotland, may have bought him some extra months. All of us male potential victims of this cancer in the future should rejoice, not moan at his prolonged survival, who knows for whom the bell may toll next?

Second, I believed that the verdict against him was unsafe. Yet I had attended the debate at Holyrood following MacAskill's decision, where the blowtorches of the party political infighters had been turned upon Kenny for his decision, not to mention those of Westminster and the United States. Only one MSP (Christine Grahame, SNP) really tried then to point to the uncertainty over the verdict against this man.

On 29th February this year immediately prior to the launch of John Ashton's book Megrahi: You are my Jury 10 Downing street issued a statement claiming the book to be 'an insult to the [Lockerbie] relatives, they had not yet seen it. Now Cameron, speaking of Megrahi's survival till almost 1000 days after his release claimed on Monday:-

"One thousand days on, this is yet another reminder that Alex Salmond's Government's decision to free (sic) the biggest mass murderer in British history was wrong and an insult to the families of the 270 people who were murdered". Make that 269 and counting rapidly down, Mr Cameron.

The Ashton book shows among many other serious weaknesses in the prosecution case that a item of evidence, (the circuit board fragment known as PT35b) could not have come from a Libyan owned timer circuit board after all, as the court believed that it did; this was the last secure bastion of the fable (now surely myth) of Megrahi having started the bomb from Malta:  Even the leader of the FBI Lockerbie investigators Edward Marshman had said publicly that the trial could not have proceeded without it.

In the 1000 days since Kenny made his move, the Salmond administration has maintained the position that it has no reason to doubt the Megrahi verdict. They too appear to choose to be ignorant of the accumulating evidence indicating the urgent need for a re-assessment of the facts in this case.

Time perhaps for Mr Salmond to take the cue from Willie Rennie MSP a voice I hear above the party political babel North of the border who has said inter alia "...... we should be investigating whether crucial information was withheld from the trial". We have already wasted 1000 days.

We should also be investigating just how the fragment PT35b came to be found within an official Scottish police evidence bag. The firm allegation from the Ashton book, supported by impeccable science (partly of Scottish origin) shows that the fragment presented to court could not have come from one of the Libyan timers. There was no evidence led of any other source for it among the wreckage. So just how did it appear in that bag apparently recovered from the debris field? There it was in that bag, wrapped in a shirt collar however did it get there if it had no real origin among the debris? Someone must know. and it's our responsibility Mr Salmond to discover how it emerged within the supposedly secure Scottish police evidence chain, is it not?

It would also be useful to know where the fragment PT35b really did come from, would it not?

That is if, as I'm sure is really the case Mr Salmond, you wish,like us relatives, to know the truth. This was the last bastion of the fable  of Megrahi having started the bomb from Malta: Marshman is right: no fragment, no trial.

As Cardinal Keith O'Brien has said he is glad that our Scottish justice system embodies a moiety of compassion.. We should also be proud of that even if Cameron is not. But people of this country need and deserve transparency in their justice systems. We are not at present moving towards that. It is too late now for Megrahi. It is not too late for the Scottish people nor for Megrahi's family. We must have objective reassessment of this case. Mr Cameron already has the examples of the gross miscarriages of justice under English law in IRA bomb cases, he might benefit from reviewing those findings.It is possible to be well intentioned, but wrong.

For 1000 days we may already have been screening the real perpetrators from justice through our inactivity. 

[An article by Tom Peterkin in The Scotsman today contains the following:]

If a week is a long time in politics then 1,000 days is the equivalent of a political aeon. This week saw the 1,000th day since the Lockerbie bomber was controversially released by Kenny MacAskill.

That “milestone” led to a bit of discussion in the Holyrood canteen – not so much on the remarkable longevity of a man who supposedly only had three months to live. It was more that the brouhaha and wall-to-wall coverage associated with Megrahi’s journey to Tripoli seemed to belong to a different age.

Since his release in August 2009, we have seen a general election, a Scottish election and local government elections. Political leaders have departed (Gordon Brown, Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie, Tavish Scott). Fortunes and reputations of others have risen and fallen (David Cameron, Nick Clegg).

Alex Salmond’s stock soared at the Scottish election but was checked slightly at the local elections. But the point was that it had been 1,000 days since Megrahi’s release and, as someone cleverly noted, there is a certain symmetry in that there are another 1,000 days to go before Salmond holds his independence referendum.

David Steel supports Lockerbie inquiry

David Steel (Lord Steel of Aikwood KT KBE PC) former leader of the UK Liberal Party, MP from 1965 to 1997, MSP from 1999 to 2003 and first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, in an interview this evening declared his support for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster.

Prosecution disclosure

The trial of Ratko Mladic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague has today been suspended because of the prosecution’s “significant disclosure errors”. The presiding Dutch judge, Alphons Orie, said the judges were still analysing the "scope and full impact" of the errors.

In the Megrahi case, the bulk of the reasons found by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for holding in 2007 that the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice related to breaches of the prosecution’s duty of disclosure. And John Ashton’s book Megrahi: You are my Jury has provided further examples of material that ought to have been disclosed by the Crown to the defence, but was not.

Just what is it about the rules regarding disclosure to the defence of evidence that could assist the accused that prosecutors in high profile criminal cases find so problematical? Is it possible that prosecution culture is so antipathetic towards the concepts of fair play and equality of arms that the rules embody that prosecutors deliberately seek to evade them? Surely not.

The Lockerbie Trial website still online

I am grateful to a friend on Facebook for reminding me that The Lockerbie Trial, a website that Ian Ferguson and I ran during the Zeist trial and appeal, is still available online.

Prime Minister crass to question a man's failure to die

[This is the headline over a letter from Ross Brown of Greenock in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

David Cameron's scathing reference to the 1000th-day anniversary of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release from Greenock Prison is another example of distasteful and unnecessary political bickering ("Megrahi survival is insult to families", says Cameron", The Herald, May 14, and Letters, May 15).

In the aftermath of the Libyan uprising and the surprising exposure of Colonel Gadaffi as a bad egg, surely our perspectives on who held responsibility for the bombing of Pan-Am flight 107 should have been somewhat altered; the complex power structure within a Libya in the grip of a dictatorship muddies the water to the extent that Megrahi's role as a political scapegoat seems increasingly evident. As the head of a state lacking the death penalty, Mr Cameron's insistence on criticising a questionably guilty man's failure to die is both confusing and crass.

The ongoing focus on Megrahi is now interesting only in terms of highlighting seemingly effective cancer treatment; if indeed there is an absence of a conspiracy based on falsification of his illness, politicians should consider refraining from using the mortality of a cancer-stricken man as a means by which to further their careers.

So why did Westminster shirk its responsibility for Megrahi?

This is the headline over a series of letters in today’s edition of The Herald responding to yesterday’s report Megrahi survival is insult to families, says Cameron.  They read as follows:]


Yet again David Cameron attacks the Scottish administration over the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The sister, brother-in-law and niece of a good friend of mine during my teaching days at Our Lady's High School, Motherwell, died on the night of December 21, 1988, when debris from the explosion aboard Clipper Maid of the Seas, Pan Am Flight 103, landed on their home in Lockerbie.

The Prime Minister states quite unequivocally: "One thousand days on, this is yet another reminder that Alex Salmond's Government's decision to free the biggest mass murderer in British history was wrong and an insult to the 270 people who were murdered." Naturally, Labour's Justice Spokesman at Holyrood, Lewis Macdonald, joins in: "Every anniversary and milestone reached by the man responsible for Scotland's worst-ever act of terrorism must be a grim reminder for the families of the Lockerbie victims." And the Tory Holyrood whip, John Lamont, speaks of "an embarrassing milestone" and a decision that "looks more and more outrageous".

Where were they and why were they functionally silent when the decision to free Megrahi was being made? I ask the same of Her Majesty's Government of the day.

I say "functionally silent" because a lot of these people had a lot to say in all the wrong places.

Under the devolution disposition, in relation to legislation all matters concerning national security, foreign policy and foreign relations are reserved to Westminster. Similarly, in relation to executive action all matters concerning national security, foreign policy and foreign relations are reserved to Whitehall. Megrahi's arrest, detention, trial, imprisonment and then, finally, the decision to set him free on licence intimately involved all elements of that oft-times-unholy trinity.

I am neither a politician nor a lawyer, but it would seem to me that prima facie the Westminster Government could and should have been the only organ of state to make any decisions in relation to Megrahi's possible release. And if the Scottish administration argued otherwise why did no-one from the Westminster Government, or the Opposition benches, seek to determine what the view of the courts, north and/or south of the Border, would be to an application to stay the Scottish administration's hand for want of jurisdiction by virtue of these higher political and constitutional considerations?
Hugh McLoughlin
[RB: Any such application would have failed.  Responsibility under the devolution settlement for compassionate release (or prisoner transfer) of prisoners in Scottish prisons rests in law squarely and clearly with the Scottish Government.  In any event, as we all know, the then Labour Government at Westminster was very keen indeed that Megrahi should be repatriated.  That, after all, was the principal aim of Tony Blair's deal in the desert.]

How convenient for our Prime Minister that Megrahi has survived 1000 days and he can rail at this and the First Minister, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and all the medical advisers who recommended release on compassionate grounds. Neither he nor his advisers seem to have taken into account the very real doubts over the safety of the conviction with bribed witnesses and withheld crucial information. Megrahi is not by any means the first person to survive a terminal condition for several years and he will not be the last.

However, by bringing this topic up in such a public way it gives him the opportunity to deflect attention from what is being called the "omnishambles" of his Government. Daily we are reminded just what an incompetent bunch he and his ministers are: witness the granny tax, pasty tax, the NHS reforms, P45s for troops on duty, sale of the Harrier jump-jet fleet at a knock-down price to America, destroying Nimrod surveillance aircraft, aircraft carriers that will have no planes until 2020 or thereby and now the jump-jet reversal of choice. If it had been written as a theatrical farce the audience would be in stitches.                           
Nigel Dewar Gibb

I was always a fan of Dr Finlay's Casebook but I didn't expect a Dr Cameron to make a return to medicine.

David Cameron obviously now sees himself as a medical expert (I guess as much a medical expert as he is a financial and political one) in that he seems to believe that he would have been able to predict the lifespan of Megrahi better than a few Scottish medical experts can.

Whatever the truth of the Lockerbie bombing it seems crass, to say the least, to use it to score rather weak political points. If this is the best case he can find to question the judgments of the Scottish Government then it seems we must be doing quite a good job of running our own country after all.
Dave Bertin

Megrahi survival is insult to families, says Cameron

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads in part:]


David Cameron has said the length of time since the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was freed is a reminder of a wrong decision taken by the Scottish Government and an insult to the victims' families.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is set to mark on Wednesday the thousandth day since his release. He was allowed to return to Libya by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from prostate cancer.

It is believed his survival is linked in part to treatment with a cancer drug, Abiraterone, not routinely available on the NHS in Scotland.

Prior to his release, doctors predicted Megrahi had three months to live but as the landmark date approaches, the Prime Minister told The Herald: "One thousand days on, this is yet another reminder that Alex Salmond's Government's decision to free the biggest mass murderer in British history was wrong and an insult to the families of the 270 people who were murdered."

Labour and the Scottish Conservatives also questioned Mr MacAskill's decision while Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie called for an investigation into claims crucial information was withheld from Megrahi's trial.

Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said: "Every anniversary and milestone reached by the man responsible for Scotland's worst-ever act of terrorism must be a grim reminder for the families of the Lockerbie victims. Given that Megrahi was given roughly 100 days to live at the time Kenny MacAskill chose to release him, it is astonishing that he is now set to reach 1000 days and calls into question the reasons for the Justice Secretary's decision."

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont said it was "an embarrassing milestone" for the Scottish Government, and that with every week that goes by, the release decision "looks more and more outrageous".

Mr Rennie said: "However evil Megrahi is, however badly the SNP handled his release and however long he has survived, rather than obsessing about whether a dying man is dead yet we should be investigating whether crucial information was withheld from the trial."

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said extensive scrutiny had vindicated the decision.

"Whether people support or oppose the decision, it was made following the due process of Scots law and we stand by it: al Megrahi is an extremely sick man dying of terminal prostate cancer."

The spokesman said "substantial opinion" including that of Nelson Mandela and Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the airline bombing, supported the decision.

He said the Government respects the views of those who oppose it, but regardless of those views "they can have complete confidence that it was taken on the basis of Scots law".

[What is truly an insult to the Lockerbie families and to the people of Scotland is the failure to investigate the shameful performance of the Scottish criminal justice system in the investigation, prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. See I accuse… and Dave’s disgrace.  Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published on its website a news item about Willie Rennie's statement.]

Terror victims respond to UN's report on their rights with caution

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Observer.  It reads in part:]

Victims of terror attacks welcome the UN's call for greater recognition, but remain sceptical over compensation terms

A report by drawn up by UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, details of which have been obtained by The Observer, proposes wide-ranging improvements in the legal treatment of those injured in terrorist attacks around the world, including an automatic right to compensation. (...)

Pamela Dix, Executive Director of Disaster Action, supporting those caught up in terrorism or disaster, began campaigning after her brother Peter died aboard Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988. "If you had suggested 23 years ago that I would still be fighting the government on all fronts for appropriate recognition, trying to get politicians to deliver on promises, I would never have believed it. You don't realise the limitations of the system until you find yourself in that position." She welcomed a recognition of the right to form groups.

Ben Emmerson, who wrote the report, said victims' stories should be at the core of anti-terrorism strategies. "Over the past decade, international human rights law has undergone a crisis of public and political confidence. By making it clear that the law is there to protect the victims, and not just those who are suspected of terrorism, the international community can start to restore those basic principles of human rights law that have taken such a battering," he said.

[A further article in The Observer giving more details of the content of the UN report can be read here.]

An exchange of views

[There has been an interesting exchange of views on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm arising out of the publication of Robert Forrester’s article The Damned Crown and the accompanying news item Crown Office under fire over “corruption of the trial court” in Pan Am 103 case. The exchange reads as follows:]

curzon
Mr Forrester should read paragraph 252 of the Appeal Court's judgment. That court said the evidence would have made no difference but that fact does not suit his, and this magazine's, agenda. 2 days ago, 07:33:08

Robert Forrester
Perhaps there is a flaw in my logic but I fail to see how an Appeal Court decision justifies the withholding of evidence from a trial court. 2 days ago, 12:26:06

curzon
Logic? How does a Crown statement which repeats what the Appeal Court said constitute "corruption of the trial court"? Yes the evidence should have been disclosed but it was heard in the appeal and dismissed.
If the break in evidence had never featured at all I could see your point or are you suggesting the Appeal Court was wrong to dismiss it? I think I can guess your answer. All these pesky judges eh!! Yesterday, 15:03:10

Robert Forrester 
Nothing whatsoever to do with 'pesky judges' actually but everything to do with the fact that the spokesperson is using an event which occurred after the fact (conviction) to say that it (the conviction) was a foregone conclusion because of an appeal judgement which quite obviously hadn't even been produced at the time. From this twisted and convoluted, backward reasoning we are expected to accept that the withholding of evidence from the court of fact is justifiable. It isn't. In the same way that denying the court knowledge of testimony produced on the back of a financial inducement to a witness who was 'not quite the full shilling' wouldn't be either. There is no argument. Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary passed the evidence concerning the Heathrow break in to the Crown (albeit in an unusual manner), the Crown subsequently failed to avail the defence of this knowledge. So no, not judges, facts. Yesterday, 18:15:16