It was on 14 March 2002 that five judges of the High Court of Justiciary sitting in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist dismissed Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal against conviction. In an article commenting on the trial and appeal, I wrote:
'As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them.
'Until such time as an appellate court (perhaps on a reference from the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) is required to address the fundamental issues of (i) whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant the incriminating findings, (ii) whether any reasonable trial court could have made those findings (and could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi) on the evidence led at Camp Zeist and (iii) whether Megrahi’s representation at the trial and the appeal was adequate, I will continue to maintain that a shameful miscarriage of justice has been perpetrated and that the Scottish criminal justice system has been gravely sullied.'
The full article can be read here. The first substantive session of the fresh appeal granted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is due to start on 28 April 2009.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Friday, 13 March 2009
The Lockerbie Trial and the Rule of Law
This is the title of an article written by Professor Hans Koechler for the National Law School of India Review, vol 19 (2009). The final section of Dr Koechler's article reads as follows:
'After an involvement of over more than 15 years in the observation and analysis of the legal and political disputes between the United Kingdom, the United States and the Libyan Jamahiriya – essentially over an issue of criminal jurisdiction in a suspected case of international terrorism –, the author has summarized his conclusions in remarks at the Law Awards of Scotland 2008:
'“Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland. At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale − its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as "supreme state interests" interfere with the imperatives of justice. Fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest. If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order − such as a state's momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests. The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience. Contrary to what skeptics and the advocates of the supremacy of realpolitik try to make us believe, the basic maxim of the rule of law is not fiat justitia, pereat mundus but fiat justitia ne pereat mundus – let justice prevail so that the world does not perish.”'
The full text of the article can be read here.
'After an involvement of over more than 15 years in the observation and analysis of the legal and political disputes between the United Kingdom, the United States and the Libyan Jamahiriya – essentially over an issue of criminal jurisdiction in a suspected case of international terrorism –, the author has summarized his conclusions in remarks at the Law Awards of Scotland 2008:
'“Whether those in public office like it or not, the Lockerbie trial has become a test case for the criminal justice system of Scotland. At the same time, it has become an exemplary case on a global scale − its handling will demonstrate whether a domestic system of criminal justice can resist the dictates of international power politics or simply becomes dysfunctional as soon as "supreme state interests" interfere with the imperatives of justice. Fairness of judicial proceedings is undoubtedly a supreme and permanent public interest. If the rule of law is to be upheld, the requirements of the administration of justice may have to take precedence over public interests of a secondary order − such as a state's momentary foreign policy considerations or commercial and trade interests. The internal stability and international legitimacy of a polity in the long term depend on whether it is able to ensure the supremacy of the law over considerations of power and convenience. Contrary to what skeptics and the advocates of the supremacy of realpolitik try to make us believe, the basic maxim of the rule of law is not fiat justitia, pereat mundus but fiat justitia ne pereat mundus – let justice prevail so that the world does not perish.”'
The full text of the article can be read here.
Thursday, 12 March 2009
Susan Lindauer: Secret Charges and The Patriot Act
In the course of a lengthy interview conducted by Michael Collins and reported on the Scoop Independent News website, Susan Lindauer discloses that charges (now dropped) were brought against her under the Patriot Act. Relevant to the Lockerbie case is the following brief extract:
'I had my entire legal strategy mapped out in the first couple of hours after my arrest. I could see mistakes in the indictment, and I quickly identified which witnesses and evidence would be necessary to repudiate the whole lot.
'My witness list was outstanding. It included international attorneys from the Lockerbie Trial, former Congressional staffers, even a couple of international journalists. One of Scotland's finest Solicitors, Edward MacKechnie, who won acquittal for his Libyan client in the Lockerbie Trial, immediately promised to travel at his own expense to testify for me as to the identity and credentials of Dr. Richard Fuisz, my CIA handler. I have the emails to prove it. His participation was beyond dispute.'
The full interview can be read here.
'I had my entire legal strategy mapped out in the first couple of hours after my arrest. I could see mistakes in the indictment, and I quickly identified which witnesses and evidence would be necessary to repudiate the whole lot.
'My witness list was outstanding. It included international attorneys from the Lockerbie Trial, former Congressional staffers, even a couple of international journalists. One of Scotland's finest Solicitors, Edward MacKechnie, who won acquittal for his Libyan client in the Lockerbie Trial, immediately promised to travel at his own expense to testify for me as to the identity and credentials of Dr. Richard Fuisz, my CIA handler. I have the emails to prove it. His participation was beyond dispute.'
The full interview can be read here.
Friday, 6 March 2009
The Influence Game: Libya Case Gets Lobbyists $2M
Two decades after a bomb blew Pan Am Flight 103 from the skies over Lockerbie, Scotland, the victims' families have finally received the full compensation Libya promised. And a lobbying firm that helped them collect is getting its share: A tidy $2 million.
The payout to Quinn Gillespie & Associates is rare, even for Washington's lucrative influence business. Of 18,989 reported lobbying fees collected last year, just 24 hit the $1 million mark, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which traces political influence in Washington.
A report the lobbying firm filed in January and interviews with participants illuminate a little-noticed side of the long battle the victims' families waged in Washington, including how they were guided behind the scenes by experts in the capital's ways.
Quinn Gillespie's payment covers work it did from 2006 through 2008 helping the relatives plot strategy, generate publicity and arrange meetings at the State Department and elsewhere.
The 1988 blast killed all 259 people on the jetliner, including 180 Americans, plus 11 on the ground. After extended negotiations, Libya agreed to pay restitution of $10 million to each family of a victim. Payment of the final $2 million to each family became stalled, and the families hired the lobbying firm to help them collect it.
"I was a lobbyist for 30 years, and I thought the families were our best lobbyists," said Frank Duggan of Alexandria, Va., a retired attorney who helped the families and initially opposed hiring Quinn Gillespie. "It was worth it. They opened doors we could not have opened."
[From a report on the ABC News website. The full text of the long article can be read here.]
The payout to Quinn Gillespie & Associates is rare, even for Washington's lucrative influence business. Of 18,989 reported lobbying fees collected last year, just 24 hit the $1 million mark, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which traces political influence in Washington.
A report the lobbying firm filed in January and interviews with participants illuminate a little-noticed side of the long battle the victims' families waged in Washington, including how they were guided behind the scenes by experts in the capital's ways.
Quinn Gillespie's payment covers work it did from 2006 through 2008 helping the relatives plot strategy, generate publicity and arrange meetings at the State Department and elsewhere.
The 1988 blast killed all 259 people on the jetliner, including 180 Americans, plus 11 on the ground. After extended negotiations, Libya agreed to pay restitution of $10 million to each family of a victim. Payment of the final $2 million to each family became stalled, and the families hired the lobbying firm to help them collect it.
"I was a lobbyist for 30 years, and I thought the families were our best lobbyists," said Frank Duggan of Alexandria, Va., a retired attorney who helped the families and initially opposed hiring Quinn Gillespie. "It was worth it. They opened doors we could not have opened."
[From a report on the ABC News website. The full text of the long article can be read here.]
Libyan intelligence chief named FM in reshuffle
Libyan strongman and long-time secret service chief Mussa Kussa was named foreign minister in a ministerial reshuffle announced by parliament on Wednesday. (...)
Kussa, 59, replaces Abdel Rahman Shalgham who held the post for eight years and will now represent Libya at the UN Security Council. (...)
The new cabinet list saw three newcomers at the telecommunications, health and education ministries while several others were abolished or absorbed into other ministries.
The major change was the appointment of Kussa, a loyal servant to Kadhafi who has been the head of the north African state's secret service for 15 years.
He has been involved in all the negotiations and policy shifts that have seen the one-time pariah state return to the international fold.
After starting his career as a security specialist for Libyan embassies in Europe, Kussa became ambassador to London in 1980 -- but was kicked out that year for declaring his determination to liquidate "enemies of the revolution" on British soil.
A strongman on the Libyan revolutionary committee which forms the backbone of Kadhafi's regime, Kussa has been in charge of major foreign policy affairs such as Africa and Libya's relations with the West.
In particular, he played a key role in reaching deals to compensate the victims of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 and bombing of a French airliner the following year, removing one of the biggest obstacles to building bridges with the West.
[From a report on the website of news agency Agence France Presse. The full text can be read here.]
Kussa, 59, replaces Abdel Rahman Shalgham who held the post for eight years and will now represent Libya at the UN Security Council. (...)
The new cabinet list saw three newcomers at the telecommunications, health and education ministries while several others were abolished or absorbed into other ministries.
The major change was the appointment of Kussa, a loyal servant to Kadhafi who has been the head of the north African state's secret service for 15 years.
He has been involved in all the negotiations and policy shifts that have seen the one-time pariah state return to the international fold.
After starting his career as a security specialist for Libyan embassies in Europe, Kussa became ambassador to London in 1980 -- but was kicked out that year for declaring his determination to liquidate "enemies of the revolution" on British soil.
A strongman on the Libyan revolutionary committee which forms the backbone of Kadhafi's regime, Kussa has been in charge of major foreign policy affairs such as Africa and Libya's relations with the West.
In particular, he played a key role in reaching deals to compensate the victims of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 and bombing of a French airliner the following year, removing one of the biggest obstacles to building bridges with the West.
[From a report on the website of news agency Agence France Presse. The full text can be read here.]
Monday, 2 March 2009
Susan Lindauer interview
The Intelligence Daily today carries an extended interview by Michael Collins with Susan Lindauer. One section reads as follows:
'Collins: What first triggered your concern about a possible attack involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure into the 9/11 warning?
'Lindauer: The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001. Our team worried openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of "tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.
'The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that Libya's man, Mr Megraghi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true. And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the US made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused Libyans, that US failure was gossip throughout the Middle East. As Dr Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty resources of U.S. Intelligence, the US was either too stupid to catch them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."
'Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the "heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.
'That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel who ever lived."
'Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie - and so we find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.'
The full interview can be read here.
'Collins: What first triggered your concern about a possible attack involving airplanes and the World Trade Center? How did Lockerbie figure into the 9/11 warning?
'Lindauer: The Lockerbie Trial in the year 2000 got us thinking of what the next terrorist scenario would look like. The bombings of Pan Am 103 in December, 1988 and UTA (French airlines) in September, 1989 were the last attacks involving airplanes prior to September 11, 2001. Our team worried openly that the Trial of the two accused Libyans would inspire a sort of "tribute attack" to the success of Lockerbie.
'The problem is that while most Americans have refused to accept that Libya's man, Mr Megraghi was innocent of the crime, it happens to be true. And terrorists groups know that. They know very well who was responsible for planting the bomb on Pan Am 103, and they know that those individuals have never been brought to justice. Indeed, throughout the Trial, when the US made such a poor showing of forensic evidence against the accused Libyans, that US failure was gossip throughout the Middle East. As Dr Fuisz used to say, terrorist groups thought that for all the mighty resources of U.S. Intelligence, the US was either too stupid to catch them. Or we were afraid because the real terrorists are "too big."
'Either of those beliefs stood to create a huge and irresistible provocation to the younger generation of jihadis. It was an easy step to anticipate that younger terrorists would be inspired to launch a tribute attack to the "heroes" who came before them. On that basis, we drew up an extreme threat scenario that the next major attack would most likely involve airplane hijackings or airplane bombings.
'That is exactly what happened by the way. Back in the 1980s, Osama bin Laden called Ahmed Jibril "a hero" and "the greatest fighter against Israel who ever lived."
'Sure enough, my own extensive sources in the Middle East have repeatedly told me that Ahmed Jibril was the true mastermind of Lockerbie - and so we find the 9/11 puzzle fits together exactly.'
The full interview can be read here.
Lockerbie Suitcase Bomb: Scientific Implausibility
This is the title of a scientific paper by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer and others which claims to establish that Pan Am 103 could not have been destroyed in the manner claimed by the Crown at the original trial. The paper, with all supporting references, can be read here.
My ignorance of matters technical and scientific is such that any opinion expressed by me on Dr De Braeckeleer's thesis would be worthless. But it is without doubt a serious contribution to knowledge regarding the Lockerbie tragedy.
My ignorance of matters technical and scientific is such that any opinion expressed by me on Dr De Braeckeleer's thesis would be worthless. But it is without doubt a serious contribution to knowledge regarding the Lockerbie tragedy.
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Lockerbie bomber is dying: wife
The wife of convicted Lockerbie bomber, Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi, warned on Thursday that he was in danger of dying due to deteriorating cancer.
"His health has considerably deteriorated. He is in danger of dying," Aisha Megrahi told AFP. "The disease has spread across his body." (...)
Defence lawyers say Megrahi's cancer is in a terminal phase but the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that he could live for years depending on how successful his treatment is.
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability," Lord Justice General Arthur Hamilton said at the time.
Aisha Megrahi said "they have refused to set him free. It is clear that the British prefer that he dies in jail."
She claimed that her husband "haemorrhaged several times recently."
"His body is not reacting any more to medication because of his bad psychological condition, according to a report by his doctor," she said, adding that she had visited him three times this month alone.
"Hospitals are refusing to admit him because of the exaggerated (police) surveillance involved in transferring him" from prison, she added.
Megrahi's wife said his family's "only wish is that he be transferred to a hospital or to our house in Scotland, so that he can spend what is left of his life with his family."
[From a report on the website of Agence France Presse. The full article can be read here.]
"His health has considerably deteriorated. He is in danger of dying," Aisha Megrahi told AFP. "The disease has spread across his body." (...)
Defence lawyers say Megrahi's cancer is in a terminal phase but the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that he could live for years depending on how successful his treatment is.
"While the disease from which the appellant suffers is incurable and may cause his death, he is not at present suffering material pain or disability," Lord Justice General Arthur Hamilton said at the time.
Aisha Megrahi said "they have refused to set him free. It is clear that the British prefer that he dies in jail."
She claimed that her husband "haemorrhaged several times recently."
"His body is not reacting any more to medication because of his bad psychological condition, according to a report by his doctor," she said, adding that she had visited him three times this month alone.
"Hospitals are refusing to admit him because of the exaggerated (police) surveillance involved in transferring him" from prison, she added.
Megrahi's wife said his family's "only wish is that he be transferred to a hospital or to our house in Scotland, so that he can spend what is left of his life with his family."
[From a report on the website of Agence France Presse. The full article can be read here.]
Sunday, 22 February 2009
Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Eleventh procedural hearing: day three
As far as I can discover, the only newspaper that provides a report on the third day of the procedural hearing is The Herald. The following are excerpts:
'The Crown yesterday insisted further investigations over undisclosed documents relating to the key witness in the Lockerbie trial, to be carried out ahead of an appeal into the case, were "unnecessary".
'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, this week began a challenge to demand undisclosed material they believe will help free their terminally ill client at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
'The Crown Office and the Advocate General are opposing this, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist. (...)
'Ronnie Clancy, QC, advocate-depute acting for the Crown, said searches had already been undertaken voluntarily by police since the defence's move was launched last year and referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's three-year investigation into the case.
'He argued the SCCCR's investigation - which referred Megrahi for a fresh appeal - was sufficient. (...)
'A delegation from the Crown Office is also to travel to Malta and "one of the tasks in hand is to actively seek consent for disclosure" of documents.
'It will also approach other foreign sources as some material could have security issues in their own jurisdiction should it be made public.
'Mr Clancy said an answer will be sought within 28 days and the defence team given the 170 documents or reasons why they should not be disclosed. (...)
'He also said the wide scope of the information sought was restrictive and said it indicated the call for disclosure was a "grand fishing expedition".
'Elements of the broad scope search could be narrowed down, Ms Scott suggested.
'She added: "What has taken place in terms of this voluntary exercise is not a proper search at all."
'Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie will give their decision at a later date. Megrahi's appeal is due to start on April 27.'
'The Crown yesterday insisted further investigations over undisclosed documents relating to the key witness in the Lockerbie trial, to be carried out ahead of an appeal into the case, were "unnecessary".
'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the atrocity, this week began a challenge to demand undisclosed material they believe will help free their terminally ill client at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.
'The Crown Office and the Advocate General are opposing this, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist. (...)
'Ronnie Clancy, QC, advocate-depute acting for the Crown, said searches had already been undertaken voluntarily by police since the defence's move was launched last year and referred to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's three-year investigation into the case.
'He argued the SCCCR's investigation - which referred Megrahi for a fresh appeal - was sufficient. (...)
'A delegation from the Crown Office is also to travel to Malta and "one of the tasks in hand is to actively seek consent for disclosure" of documents.
'It will also approach other foreign sources as some material could have security issues in their own jurisdiction should it be made public.
'Mr Clancy said an answer will be sought within 28 days and the defence team given the 170 documents or reasons why they should not be disclosed. (...)
'He also said the wide scope of the information sought was restrictive and said it indicated the call for disclosure was a "grand fishing expedition".
'Elements of the broad scope search could be narrowed down, Ms Scott suggested.
'She added: "What has taken place in terms of this voluntary exercise is not a proper search at all."
'Lord Hamilton, the Lord Justice General, Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie will give their decision at a later date. Megrahi's appeal is due to start on April 27.'
Friday, 20 February 2009
Eleventh procedural hearing: day two
Three newspapers have today published reports on the second day's proceedings in the current procedural hearing in which Mr Megrahi's legal team is seeking disclosure of documents which the Crown claims either do not exist or are not disclosable.
The report in The Times can be read here; that in The Herald here; and that in the Glasgow Evening Times here.
At the end of the third day of submissions today (Friday, 20 February) the court made avizandum, ie announced that it would take time to consider and prepare its judgment on the issues raised. If tomorrow's newspapers report on the submissions made during the third day's proceedings, I shall provide links on this blog.
The report in The Times can be read here; that in The Herald here; and that in the Glasgow Evening Times here.
At the end of the third day of submissions today (Friday, 20 February) the court made avizandum, ie announced that it would take time to consider and prepare its judgment on the issues raised. If tomorrow's newspapers report on the submissions made during the third day's proceedings, I shall provide links on this blog.
Thursday, 19 February 2009
Crown fights to keep 48 pieces of Lockerbie trial evidence secret
This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald, reporting on the (eleventh) procedural hearing in Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal held yesterday. The article reads in part:
'Prosecutors are trying to keep secret 48 pieces of evidence relating to the Lockerbie trial, including a secret fax that could discredit a key Crown witness.
'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 bombing, yesterday began a challenge over material they believe will free their terminally ill client.
'But the Crown Office and the UK Advocate General are fighting against disclosure, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist.
'The Herald can today reveal that the first item on the list is a fax which, the Libyan's defence team claims, places a fundamental question mark against the original trial testimony of Tony Gauci, who sold clothes later found in the wreckage of PanAm 103 at Lockerbie.
'Judges at Camp Zeist were told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989, while the fax at the centre of yesterday's proceedings is allegedly dated six days earlier.
'Megrahi's team believes that confusion and disparity further compromises the integrity of a man described as an "important witness" at the trial. (...)
'Another previously unseen fax from the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) or committee, which was set up after Lockerbie to investigate the case and included representatives from Scottish forces and the security services, refers to a meeting between Mr Gauci and FBI agents when Scottish police were not present. However, no record or statement has been shared with the defence.
'Another JIG fax referred to yesterday indicates that there are other missing statements in relation to Mr Gauci, saying he saw the key clothes purchaser the day afterwards, and identified him as someone other than Megrahi.
'That document refers to concerns among the Scottish police at the time that "the witness was trying to please them".
'The defence also claims that the Crown pre-trial precognition of Mr Gauci was missing and was only recently discovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defence is also seeking "undisclosed information about discussion of reward money".
'This is thought to relate to undisclosed discussions that Mr Gauci and his brother, Paul, could be influenced by the rumour of financial remuneration.
'Ms [Maggie] Scott [QC for Megrahi] warned that there was a "reasonable" or "real" possibility that the Crown's failure to hand over the material could constitute a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to a person's right to a fair trial.
'She explained that, in its written responses to the defence, the Crown had argued that in some cases the calls for information were too wide, in others that the information does not exist and/or that it is not relevant. The hearing continues until at least tomorrow.'
In the course of her submissions to the court Ms Scott referred to the "wholesale opposition" by the Crown to the defence team's requests for disclosure.
In an accompanying article, Lucy Adams writes:
'The trial and world's media was told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989. However, new evidence yesterday revealed that it actually took place on September 8, yet no record of this meeting or what it uncovered has been shared with the defence team.
'A new document unearthed during the three-and-a-half-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and not previously discussed in public, alerted commission members and defence lawyers to the fact this photoshow had taken place.
'Maggie Scott, Megrahi's QC, said yesterday: "This is part of the history of what happened, which goes to the centre of the reliability of evidence."
'Ms Scott said: "No further information in relation to this photoshow has been disclosed. All we know is that is that he does not make a positive identification but that there is a reference to hairstyles and features.
'"The whole process of selection is important and that is why this background history is so necessary."
'She also revealed that the commission's report said it was a "matter of some concern" that a police statement about the September 8 event had never been recorded.
'Despite the inconsistencies in his 19 statements to the police, even the appeal court described Mr Gauci as reliable.
'However, the commission found that just four days before an ID parade at which he picked out Megrahi, Mr Gauci saw a photograph of the Libyan in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.'
'Prosecutors are trying to keep secret 48 pieces of evidence relating to the Lockerbie trial, including a secret fax that could discredit a key Crown witness.
'Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the 1988 bombing, yesterday began a challenge over material they believe will free their terminally ill client.
'But the Crown Office and the UK Advocate General are fighting against disclosure, claiming that in some cases the evidence does not exist.
'The Herald can today reveal that the first item on the list is a fax which, the Libyan's defence team claims, places a fundamental question mark against the original trial testimony of Tony Gauci, who sold clothes later found in the wreckage of PanAm 103 at Lockerbie.
'Judges at Camp Zeist were told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989, while the fax at the centre of yesterday's proceedings is allegedly dated six days earlier.
'Megrahi's team believes that confusion and disparity further compromises the integrity of a man described as an "important witness" at the trial. (...)
'Another previously unseen fax from the Joint Intelligence Group (JIG) or committee, which was set up after Lockerbie to investigate the case and included representatives from Scottish forces and the security services, refers to a meeting between Mr Gauci and FBI agents when Scottish police were not present. However, no record or statement has been shared with the defence.
'Another JIG fax referred to yesterday indicates that there are other missing statements in relation to Mr Gauci, saying he saw the key clothes purchaser the day afterwards, and identified him as someone other than Megrahi.
'That document refers to concerns among the Scottish police at the time that "the witness was trying to please them".
'The defence also claims that the Crown pre-trial precognition of Mr Gauci was missing and was only recently discovered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The defence is also seeking "undisclosed information about discussion of reward money".
'This is thought to relate to undisclosed discussions that Mr Gauci and his brother, Paul, could be influenced by the rumour of financial remuneration.
'Ms [Maggie] Scott [QC for Megrahi] warned that there was a "reasonable" or "real" possibility that the Crown's failure to hand over the material could constitute a breach of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, relating to a person's right to a fair trial.
'She explained that, in its written responses to the defence, the Crown had argued that in some cases the calls for information were too wide, in others that the information does not exist and/or that it is not relevant. The hearing continues until at least tomorrow.'
In the course of her submissions to the court Ms Scott referred to the "wholesale opposition" by the Crown to the defence team's requests for disclosure.
In an accompanying article, Lucy Adams writes:
'The trial and world's media was told that the first "photoshow" with Mr Gauci took place on September 14, 1989. However, new evidence yesterday revealed that it actually took place on September 8, yet no record of this meeting or what it uncovered has been shared with the defence team.
'A new document unearthed during the three-and-a-half-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and not previously discussed in public, alerted commission members and defence lawyers to the fact this photoshow had taken place.
'Maggie Scott, Megrahi's QC, said yesterday: "This is part of the history of what happened, which goes to the centre of the reliability of evidence."
'Ms Scott said: "No further information in relation to this photoshow has been disclosed. All we know is that is that he does not make a positive identification but that there is a reference to hairstyles and features.
'"The whole process of selection is important and that is why this background history is so necessary."
'She also revealed that the commission's report said it was a "matter of some concern" that a police statement about the September 8 event had never been recorded.
'Despite the inconsistencies in his 19 statements to the police, even the appeal court described Mr Gauci as reliable.
'However, the commission found that just four days before an ID parade at which he picked out Megrahi, Mr Gauci saw a photograph of the Libyan in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.'
Tuesday, 17 February 2009
Lockerbie Fears
Relatives of the victims of an airliner Libyan terrorists blew up over Scotland 20 years ago are appealing to British Ambassador Nigel Sheinwald for information on any secret talks to release the convicted mastermind of the attack to Libya.
"I have a great fear that your government may revisit promises made concerning the transfer of the convicted bomber back to Libya," Francis J. Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103, said in a letter to Mr. Sheinwald on Friday.
Mr. Duggan said he is concerned by newspaper reports that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi might be included in a treaty between Britain and Libya to transfer other Libyan prisoners held in British jails to Libya. The treaty is expected to be considered by the British Parliament in April.
Mr. Duggan, a Washington lawyer, said he has been unable to "determine, from a reading of the treaty, whether al-Megrahi was specifically considered during the negotiations leading up to the agreement."
"There were many British citizens killed on Dec. 21, 1988, and relatives of those passengers on Pan Am 103 were assured that the proposed treaty did not cover the Lockerbie bomber," Mr. Duggan said, adding that American relatives of the victims are also petitioning the U.S. government to block any transfer of Megrahi to Libya.
[From the Embassy Row column of today's edition of The Washington Times. The full article can be read here.]
"I have a great fear that your government may revisit promises made concerning the transfer of the convicted bomber back to Libya," Francis J. Duggan, president of Victims of Pan Am 103, said in a letter to Mr. Sheinwald on Friday.
Mr. Duggan said he is concerned by newspaper reports that Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi might be included in a treaty between Britain and Libya to transfer other Libyan prisoners held in British jails to Libya. The treaty is expected to be considered by the British Parliament in April.
Mr. Duggan, a Washington lawyer, said he has been unable to "determine, from a reading of the treaty, whether al-Megrahi was specifically considered during the negotiations leading up to the agreement."
"There were many British citizens killed on Dec. 21, 1988, and relatives of those passengers on Pan Am 103 were assured that the proposed treaty did not cover the Lockerbie bomber," Mr. Duggan said, adding that American relatives of the victims are also petitioning the U.S. government to block any transfer of Megrahi to Libya.
[From the Embassy Row column of today's edition of The Washington Times. The full article can be read here.]
FBI Lab in Serious Trouble
This is the headline over Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's most recent article in OhMyNews International. The article reads in part:
'In a few days, the National Academy of Sciences will release a report regarding forensic science in the US in general. The report takes a special look at the FBI forensic laboratories.
'Scientists who worked on the report allege that the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Justice Department, tried repeatedly to block its release. Senator Shelby accuses the National Institute of Justice of having attempted to influence the panel.
'According to people who have seen the current draft, the document is "a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting."
'The report suggests that that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the forensic analyses.
'It states that the Bureau forensic lab relies on untested theories conducted by poorly trained technicians who have no training in sciences and statistics. (...)
'The author can now announce that the technical report regarding the bomb that exploded on board of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie is seriously flawed. Once corrections are made, a spectacular conclusion follows. The Lockerbie verdict is scientifically impossible. A summary of this new report, which was reviewed by top experts in the field, will be soon made available to our readers.'
'In a few days, the National Academy of Sciences will release a report regarding forensic science in the US in general. The report takes a special look at the FBI forensic laboratories.
'Scientists who worked on the report allege that the National Institute of Justice, a research arm of the Justice Department, tried repeatedly to block its release. Senator Shelby accuses the National Institute of Justice of having attempted to influence the panel.
'According to people who have seen the current draft, the document is "a sweeping critique of many forensic methods that the police and prosecutors rely on, including fingerprinting, firearms identification and analysis of bite marks, blood spatter, hair and handwriting."
'The report suggests that that Congress should create a federal agency to guarantee the independence of the forensic analyses.
'It states that the Bureau forensic lab relies on untested theories conducted by poorly trained technicians who have no training in sciences and statistics. (...)
'The author can now announce that the technical report regarding the bomb that exploded on board of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie is seriously flawed. Once corrections are made, a spectacular conclusion follows. The Lockerbie verdict is scientifically impossible. A summary of this new report, which was reviewed by top experts in the field, will be soon made available to our readers.'
Sunday, 15 February 2009
The FCO and public interest immunity
‘The Foreign Office (FCO) solicited the letter from the US State Department that forced British judges to block the disclosure of CIA files documenting the torture of a British resident held in Guantánamo Bay, The Observer can reveal.
‘The letter said that the release of papers relating to Binyam Mohamed would damage future intelligence sharing between the two countries.
‘A former senior State Department official said that it was the Foreign Office that initiated the "cover-up" by asking the State Department to send the letter so that it could be introduced into the court proceedings. (…)
‘The former senior State Department official said: "Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]." The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: 'Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.' If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court."
‘The letter, sent by the State Department's top legal adviser John Bellinger to foreign secretary David Miliband's legal adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, on 21 August last year, said: "We want to affirm in the clearest terms that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements."’
The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Observer.
The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the “foreign power” that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be “No”.
‘The letter said that the release of papers relating to Binyam Mohamed would damage future intelligence sharing between the two countries.
‘A former senior State Department official said that it was the Foreign Office that initiated the "cover-up" by asking the State Department to send the letter so that it could be introduced into the court proceedings. (…)
‘The former senior State Department official said: "Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]." The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: 'Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record.' If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court."
‘The letter, sent by the State Department's top legal adviser John Bellinger to foreign secretary David Miliband's legal adviser, Daniel Bethlehem, on 21 August last year, said: "We want to affirm in the clearest terms that the public disclosure of these documents or of the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence-sharing arrangements."’
The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Observer.
The reasons advanced by the Foreign Secretary in the Binyam Mohamed case for asserting public interest immunity are precisely the same reasons as he put forward in his PII certificate in the current Lockerbie appeal. It was claimed in the Appeal Court by the Advocate General that the UK Government had tried, but failed, to obtain the consent of the “foreign power” that supplied the document(s) which Mr Megrahi’s legal team sought to have disclosed and the non-disclosure of which at the original trial formed the basis of one of the grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission held that his conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
One is now left wondering just how hard the FCO tried to get the foreign power’s consent to disclosure, and whether it was suggested to the foreign power that the FCO’s preferred response to the request would be “No”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)