Kenny MacAskill is to be put under intense pressure to keep the Lockerbie bomber behind bars in Scotland this week when he takes part in discussions with the families of the American victims.
The justice secretary will hear a heartfelt plea from Americans who lost loved ones in the atrocity and who firmly believe that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi should die in a Scottish prison.
MacAskill will hear that American families are "shocked and horrified" that Scottish ministers are considering whether Megrahi should be sent back home to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck by Tony Blair and Muammar Gaddaffi.
MacAskill will speak with the relatives during a video conference that will link Edinburgh with the British Embassy in Washington.
MacAskill has already been in touch with the US Attorney General Eric Holder, who is understood to have informed the justice secretary that Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, should stay in HMP Greenock.
That message will be rammed home on Thursday by the American families, who firmly believe Megrahi was responsible for the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
Last night Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: "The American relatives have never had the opportunity to make victim impact statements. It will be very emotional. They will talk about what their loss means to them – 20 years of missed grandchildren, missed weddings, all of the things that go on in life. It is especially distressing for those who lost young people – so many of them would have made a difference.
"He should stay in prison in Scotland. That was the agreement. The position of the US government is that he should serve his sentence in Scotland and that will be the overwhelming message to MacAskill."
A letter to MacAskill written by Kathleen Flynn, a mother who lost her son John Patrick Flynn on the night that the aircraft exploded, sums up the families' attitude.
"We are shocked and horrified that the convicted bomber of this horrific crime is being considered for a prisoner-transfer agreement to his native country, Libya," she said.
"I would hope that you would include the (views] of the majority of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing – the 189 Americans lost on the flight."
MacAskill and Alex Salmond face one of the most taxing dilemmas of the SNP's reign as they decide what to do with the former Libyan intelligence agent who was convicted of the atrocity in the Scottish courts.
There is a vocal body of opinion who believe that Megrahi has been the victim of a huge miscarriage of justice. He is currently appealing against his conviction.
Among those convinced of his innocence is Jim Swire, a retired British GP who lost his daughter in the bombing.
Swire said: "Of course the Americans are saying that he is guilty. Their administration has told them that he is guilty. But I don't think they have questioned the quality of the evidence."
[The above is the text of an article in the Scotland on Sunday edition of 5 July.]
Saturday, 4 July 2009
Friday, 3 July 2009
Poll of Scottish lawyers finds 86% back inquiry into Lockerbie
[The following is the text of a press release issued by the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. The magazine's website can be accessed here.]
A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.
86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.
Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.
"I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”
The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.
"A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.
“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.
“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.
A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.
86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.
Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.
"I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”
The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.
"A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.
“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”
Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.
“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.
Thursday, 2 July 2009
Dr Swire's submission to Kenny MacAskill
[A group of UK relatives of victims of Pan Am 103 had a meeting on 1 July with the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, in the context of Mr MacAskill's duties in respect of prisoner transfer and/or compassionate release in the case of Abdelbaset Megrahi. What follows is Dr Jim Swire's personal submission to the minister, reproduced with the consent of Dr Swire and Mr MacAskill. The Herald's edition of 3 July contains an article on the subject. It can be read here.]
Secretary,
The prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which is among the subjects we will raise with you today was born in what the media have come to refer to as ‘the deal in the desert’ between Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.
We, relatives of some of those who died aboard the Maid of the Seas in 1988 come from a deeper darker desert of more than 20 years duration: the desert of loss in which we have searched for truth and justice. During those 20 years, time and again, we have been denied an inquiry by a whole succession of English Prime Ministers. Almost the only light to shine into that darkness has been those aspects of the truth which we have gleaned from study of the evidence led at Zeist. You will find us make common cause for the continuation therefore of the current appeal as being the only currently available vehicle for discovering more of that truth we crave, and to which we have an unalienable right.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put my personal views to you today, that is both a privilege and an honour. I know that within our group there is great hope that the current appeal will clear up the major doubts surrounding this verdict and throw some light on the truth we seek as to how our beloved families came to be unprotected, and whose was the hand that slew them. But today my plea is an individual one from the heart.
You have the great responsibility of deciding how to balance the needs of Scotland, her criminal justice system and her people, against what shall be the impact upon the prisoner Baset Al Megrahi, who till now has always maintained his innocence and his desperation to clear his name.
You have the new procedure of the Prisoner Transfer agreement (PTA) to consider, and the knowledge that Baset is dying in his prison cell and that his presence there adds nothing to the judicial process, any more than his release could further endanger the public.
I may speak only for myself, but for you to take any step that would abort the current appeal would be anathema to me and I believe to many other UK relatives. I realise that for Baset’s present appeal to continue, is an expensive option in terms not only of money, resource allocation and their Lordships' time, but also raises the possibility that the decisions made by some of Scotland's most eminent judges at Zeist, and the behaviour of the Crown Office and Scottish police might be called into question should the appeal succeed. Such possibilities will lead to pressure upon you as you make your decision.
On the other hand, to allow the appeal to be abandoned would be a body blow to the international reputation of Scotland and to domestic confidence in our judicial system for a generation. I suggest that the decision to use the PTA and so stop the appeal would, in the longer term, be even more dearly bought than to allow the appeal to continue.
Immediately following the issue of indictments against the 2 Libyans I went to see Colonel Gaddafi to plead that he allow his 2 citizens to attend trial before a Scottish Court under what I believed to be one of the most distinguished and fairest systems of criminal justice of any country. After the intervention of a number of eminent people around the world, the Colonel agreed, and I remained in court throughout, to listen to all the evidence.
I found that far from underlining their guilt the evidence convinced me that the two were simply not guilty as charged. That view has been amplified since by the spectacle of a number of international observers and jurists adding to a flood of public criticism about the lack of fairness of the trial, and by new evidence coming to light, especially that concerning the Heathrow break-in.
But we must look closer to home within our own Scottish borders for the most significant criticism of the trial process: to the SCCRC. As you know sir, they found that, partly on account of a failure by the Crown to share evidential material with the defence, there was a significant risk that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Hence the current appeal.
We are the inheritors of a justice system of which our great nation, Scotland, has been the proud protector for centuries, and over which you now have great influence. Faced with the spectre that Zeist may have been a miscarriage of justice by that great system, during what is arguably the most significant case it has ever handled, I feel sure that you will want to ensure that the name of Scotland and her justice emerge at the bar of history vindicated. For that to be evident to the historians of the future, our judicial system needs to be seen to have reacted responsibly from within its own resources to the challenge which this case has presented.
The SCCRC findings were but a first step in such a process of self examination. To continue that process we need to see our best legal minds re-evaluating the evidence, both original and new, to decide whether this verdict should stand. That seems to demand the continuation of the present appeal.
The news that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport on the early morning of the disaster, and that information about it had remained unknown till after Baset had been found guilty, has led me to write personally to Elish Angiolini our current Lord Advocate, as a vital member of the existing Scottish justice system to ask her to do three things:-
1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had evidence of the break-in during the 12 years that it had remained hidden.
2.) If no such evidence could be found, to show why it had not been passed to the Crown Office by those who must have discovered it during their conduct of the criminal investigation.
3.) To consider whether a fresh Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) should be initiated in view of the misdirection given to the original one namely that the court was to presume that the explosive device must have come from Frankfurt.
It must be clear to any objective observer that the absence of this information influenced the fairness of the Zeist trial, and rendered the FAI unable to examine all factors which might have contributed to the deaths. The absence of an explanation for its having lain unmentioned for 12 years has led to grave accusations against the Crown Office by one of the UN's appointed observers, Prof Hans Koechler, and no doubt these matters will be faced up to if the appeal continues.
My letter to the Lord Advocate of 5th June this year remains acknowledged, but as yet unanswered.
In a letter to our group's co-ordinator, Jean Berkley, and dated 19th June this year, Jack Straw, your opposite number at Westminster wrote "As the (PTA) was the first .... to provide for the transfer of a prisoner without his or her consent... the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested additional time to consider the human rights implications of this...." Jack Straw then refused to allow that committee the full time that they had asked for, to consider those Human Rights implications.
You, Sir, however under the provisions of the PTA have at least 90 days from the date of the Libyan government application, to consider the balance between the prisoner’s rights, the needs of the Scottish public to have faith in their criminal justice system and the needs of the relatives of all nationalities to know the truth about who murdered our family members, and why they were not prevented from doing so.
I think that the eyes of those proud Scots who gave the world the Enlightenment and guarded our legal system so well will be upon your decision.
To use the PTA would be to stop the second appeal and would cost our country the best chance of showing that it can objectively assess its own past performance and if necessary be brave enough to correct it from within, even in the face of gross international pressures.
It would also grievously damage the search by innocent relatives for the truth concerning the murders of their dear families.
You have, Sir, an alternative which again appears similarly to carry no legally enshrined requirement on the part of the prisoner to initiate its use. That would be to grant him Compassionate Release (CR). The decision to do that could include provision to return him home just as soon as the PTA could, but without compromising the ongoing second appeal.
I began by pointing to Baset's position, he has always maintained to me that he is innocent but that he did not wish to return home to his beloved family until his name, and that of his family for the future had been cleared. I acknowledge that for you the responsibility for resurrecting the good name of Scottish justice through the continuation of this appeal is a far greater issue than the needs of an individual convicted prisoner.
But I am here simply as a father who is determined to find out who murdered his daughter and why they were not prevented from doing so. I have a right to know these things, but as an individual I have never sought revenge, for vengeance must remain in the hands of a far greater Power than you or I Sir. Thus I have applauded the easing of the enmity between Libya and Britain, but I have also empathised with the fate of one man, now dying, and his family, whose continuing torturous separation serves no purpose in the administration of justice, beyond being a means of reducing the cries of outrage raised by those who set aside the precepts of human kindness.
Use of Compassionate Release(CR) would allow Baset home knowing that review of his case could continue. It would gloriously fulfil the Christian exhortation ‘love thine enemy’ for many I know regard Baset as such.
Use of CR would also mean that those innocent relatives who seek the truth and desperately hope therefore that the appeal can continue and reveal more of that truth would get their wish.
We or our descendents will be around to see how history judges the great decision which it falls upon you, Sir, to make.
I wish you wisdom, integrity and human kindness in making that weighty decision.
Secretary,
The prisoner transfer agreement (PTA), which is among the subjects we will raise with you today was born in what the media have come to refer to as ‘the deal in the desert’ between Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.
We, relatives of some of those who died aboard the Maid of the Seas in 1988 come from a deeper darker desert of more than 20 years duration: the desert of loss in which we have searched for truth and justice. During those 20 years, time and again, we have been denied an inquiry by a whole succession of English Prime Ministers. Almost the only light to shine into that darkness has been those aspects of the truth which we have gleaned from study of the evidence led at Zeist. You will find us make common cause for the continuation therefore of the current appeal as being the only currently available vehicle for discovering more of that truth we crave, and to which we have an unalienable right.
I am grateful for the opportunity to put my personal views to you today, that is both a privilege and an honour. I know that within our group there is great hope that the current appeal will clear up the major doubts surrounding this verdict and throw some light on the truth we seek as to how our beloved families came to be unprotected, and whose was the hand that slew them. But today my plea is an individual one from the heart.
You have the great responsibility of deciding how to balance the needs of Scotland, her criminal justice system and her people, against what shall be the impact upon the prisoner Baset Al Megrahi, who till now has always maintained his innocence and his desperation to clear his name.
You have the new procedure of the Prisoner Transfer agreement (PTA) to consider, and the knowledge that Baset is dying in his prison cell and that his presence there adds nothing to the judicial process, any more than his release could further endanger the public.
I may speak only for myself, but for you to take any step that would abort the current appeal would be anathema to me and I believe to many other UK relatives. I realise that for Baset’s present appeal to continue, is an expensive option in terms not only of money, resource allocation and their Lordships' time, but also raises the possibility that the decisions made by some of Scotland's most eminent judges at Zeist, and the behaviour of the Crown Office and Scottish police might be called into question should the appeal succeed. Such possibilities will lead to pressure upon you as you make your decision.
On the other hand, to allow the appeal to be abandoned would be a body blow to the international reputation of Scotland and to domestic confidence in our judicial system for a generation. I suggest that the decision to use the PTA and so stop the appeal would, in the longer term, be even more dearly bought than to allow the appeal to continue.
Immediately following the issue of indictments against the 2 Libyans I went to see Colonel Gaddafi to plead that he allow his 2 citizens to attend trial before a Scottish Court under what I believed to be one of the most distinguished and fairest systems of criminal justice of any country. After the intervention of a number of eminent people around the world, the Colonel agreed, and I remained in court throughout, to listen to all the evidence.
I found that far from underlining their guilt the evidence convinced me that the two were simply not guilty as charged. That view has been amplified since by the spectacle of a number of international observers and jurists adding to a flood of public criticism about the lack of fairness of the trial, and by new evidence coming to light, especially that concerning the Heathrow break-in.
But we must look closer to home within our own Scottish borders for the most significant criticism of the trial process: to the SCCRC. As you know sir, they found that, partly on account of a failure by the Crown to share evidential material with the defence, there was a significant risk that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. Hence the current appeal.
We are the inheritors of a justice system of which our great nation, Scotland, has been the proud protector for centuries, and over which you now have great influence. Faced with the spectre that Zeist may have been a miscarriage of justice by that great system, during what is arguably the most significant case it has ever handled, I feel sure that you will want to ensure that the name of Scotland and her justice emerge at the bar of history vindicated. For that to be evident to the historians of the future, our judicial system needs to be seen to have reacted responsibly from within its own resources to the challenge which this case has presented.
The SCCRC findings were but a first step in such a process of self examination. To continue that process we need to see our best legal minds re-evaluating the evidence, both original and new, to decide whether this verdict should stand. That seems to demand the continuation of the present appeal.
The news that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport on the early morning of the disaster, and that information about it had remained unknown till after Baset had been found guilty, has led me to write personally to Elish Angiolini our current Lord Advocate, as a vital member of the existing Scottish justice system to ask her to do three things:-
1.) To discover whether the Crown Office had evidence of the break-in during the 12 years that it had remained hidden.
2.) If no such evidence could be found, to show why it had not been passed to the Crown Office by those who must have discovered it during their conduct of the criminal investigation.
3.) To consider whether a fresh Fatal Accident Inquiry(FAI) should be initiated in view of the misdirection given to the original one namely that the court was to presume that the explosive device must have come from Frankfurt.
It must be clear to any objective observer that the absence of this information influenced the fairness of the Zeist trial, and rendered the FAI unable to examine all factors which might have contributed to the deaths. The absence of an explanation for its having lain unmentioned for 12 years has led to grave accusations against the Crown Office by one of the UN's appointed observers, Prof Hans Koechler, and no doubt these matters will be faced up to if the appeal continues.
My letter to the Lord Advocate of 5th June this year remains acknowledged, but as yet unanswered.
In a letter to our group's co-ordinator, Jean Berkley, and dated 19th June this year, Jack Straw, your opposite number at Westminster wrote "As the (PTA) was the first .... to provide for the transfer of a prisoner without his or her consent... the Joint Committee on Human Rights requested additional time to consider the human rights implications of this...." Jack Straw then refused to allow that committee the full time that they had asked for, to consider those Human Rights implications.
You, Sir, however under the provisions of the PTA have at least 90 days from the date of the Libyan government application, to consider the balance between the prisoner’s rights, the needs of the Scottish public to have faith in their criminal justice system and the needs of the relatives of all nationalities to know the truth about who murdered our family members, and why they were not prevented from doing so.
I think that the eyes of those proud Scots who gave the world the Enlightenment and guarded our legal system so well will be upon your decision.
To use the PTA would be to stop the second appeal and would cost our country the best chance of showing that it can objectively assess its own past performance and if necessary be brave enough to correct it from within, even in the face of gross international pressures.
It would also grievously damage the search by innocent relatives for the truth concerning the murders of their dear families.
You have, Sir, an alternative which again appears similarly to carry no legally enshrined requirement on the part of the prisoner to initiate its use. That would be to grant him Compassionate Release (CR). The decision to do that could include provision to return him home just as soon as the PTA could, but without compromising the ongoing second appeal.
I began by pointing to Baset's position, he has always maintained to me that he is innocent but that he did not wish to return home to his beloved family until his name, and that of his family for the future had been cleared. I acknowledge that for you the responsibility for resurrecting the good name of Scottish justice through the continuation of this appeal is a far greater issue than the needs of an individual convicted prisoner.
But I am here simply as a father who is determined to find out who murdered his daughter and why they were not prevented from doing so. I have a right to know these things, but as an individual I have never sought revenge, for vengeance must remain in the hands of a far greater Power than you or I Sir. Thus I have applauded the easing of the enmity between Libya and Britain, but I have also empathised with the fate of one man, now dying, and his family, whose continuing torturous separation serves no purpose in the administration of justice, beyond being a means of reducing the cries of outrage raised by those who set aside the precepts of human kindness.
Use of Compassionate Release(CR) would allow Baset home knowing that review of his case could continue. It would gloriously fulfil the Christian exhortation ‘love thine enemy’ for many I know regard Baset as such.
Use of CR would also mean that those innocent relatives who seek the truth and desperately hope therefore that the appeal can continue and reveal more of that truth would get their wish.
We or our descendents will be around to see how history judges the great decision which it falls upon you, Sir, to make.
I wish you wisdom, integrity and human kindness in making that weighty decision.
Monday, 29 June 2009
From a former student
I was reading about Lockerbie today - one of the earliest news events that I remember - it was 21st december 1988, and I was only five. I think the same year there had been the Piper Alpha disaster, when a North Sea rig explosion killed more than a hundred people. Megrahi is appealing again. The most memorable law lecture I ever had was Robert Black telling us that he thought the Libyan ex head of security was innocent. The crucial evidence, from a Maltese shopkeeper, was simply not reliable. And Black was better positioned than most to judge. What seems sure is this: the action was not that of one man, acting off his own bat. A state - Libya? - was at work. But why did the US not go crazy then - given 180 of their citizens died. How is it that Colonel Gaddafi has managed to re-paint his international image in a credible light, when by implication - if Megrahi was guilty, the big man must have known? And if Black is right and it wasn't Megrahi - could it have been another group entirely? What is clear is that it couldn't possibly achieve anything - not like hostage taking which at least can have a purpose of dealmaking - this was just an act of brutality - and no one ever said they were responsible for it. Isn't Megrahi just a convenient scapegoat? Will the whole truth ever come out?
[The above is a post dated 28 June 2009 on the tinoscandle blog.]
[The above is a post dated 28 June 2009 on the tinoscandle blog.]
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Opinion split over Lockerbie bomber’s fate
Survey shows that 51% of Scots believe man jailed for atrocity should be allowed to die in Libya
More Scots believe the man jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing should be allowed to die in Libya than serve the rest of his sentence in a Scottish jail.
The survey by Cello MRUK for The Sunday Times found that while 49% of those who expressed an opinion want Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 51% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya or be freed.
Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, is currently considering a request from the Libyan authorities for Megrahi to be released into their custody under the terms of a transfer deal brokered by London and Tripoli.
MacAskill is expected to announce his decision within days amid growing concern about the health of Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer and wants to spend his final days in Libya with his family.
The poll of 1,040 adults across Scotland found that 40% of those with a view believe Megrahi should be transferred to Libyan custody while a further 11% think he should be freed on compassionate grounds, another option MacAskill is considering. Just under a quarter of those polled were undecided.
Under the treaty agreed by the British and Libyan authorities no prisoner can be transferred while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Last week the Sunday Times revealed that Megrahi, who is in Greenock prison, has told how he does not believe he will live to clear his name and may drop his appeal to try to spend his final days with his family.
MacAskill intends to talk to British and American relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988 before announcing his decision.
MacAskill said any decision on whether or not to transfer Megrahi from his Greenock jail to Libya would be taken on judicial grounds alone.
While Scottish opinion is evenly divided between those who believe Megrahi should be transferred or freed and those who say he should be forced to remain in Scotland, the Tories claim Megrahi should not be treated differently from any other prisoner with a terminal illness.
It emerged last week that Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged Megrahi, was unaware that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Megrahi.
Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with.
It will be for the Appeal Court to determine the significance of the alleged movement of the fragment in 1990, which may form part of Megrahi’s appeal.
[This is the text of an article published today (and not on 28 March as the website displays) by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.]
More Scots believe the man jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing should be allowed to die in Libya than serve the rest of his sentence in a Scottish jail.
The survey by Cello MRUK for The Sunday Times found that while 49% of those who expressed an opinion want Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi to remain in Scotland, 51% thought he should serve the rest of his sentence in Libya or be freed.
Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, is currently considering a request from the Libyan authorities for Megrahi to be released into their custody under the terms of a transfer deal brokered by London and Tripoli.
MacAskill is expected to announce his decision within days amid growing concern about the health of Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer and wants to spend his final days in Libya with his family.
The poll of 1,040 adults across Scotland found that 40% of those with a view believe Megrahi should be transferred to Libyan custody while a further 11% think he should be freed on compassionate grounds, another option MacAskill is considering. Just under a quarter of those polled were undecided.
Under the treaty agreed by the British and Libyan authorities no prisoner can be transferred while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Last week the Sunday Times revealed that Megrahi, who is in Greenock prison, has told how he does not believe he will live to clear his name and may drop his appeal to try to spend his final days with his family.
MacAskill intends to talk to British and American relatives of the 270 people who died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie in 1988 before announcing his decision.
MacAskill said any decision on whether or not to transfer Megrahi from his Greenock jail to Libya would be taken on judicial grounds alone.
While Scottish opinion is evenly divided between those who believe Megrahi should be transferred or freed and those who say he should be forced to remain in Scotland, the Tories claim Megrahi should not be treated differently from any other prisoner with a terminal illness.
It emerged last week that Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged Megrahi, was unaware that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Megrahi.
Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with.
It will be for the Appeal Court to determine the significance of the alleged movement of the fragment in 1990, which may form part of Megrahi’s appeal.
[This is the text of an article published today (and not on 28 March as the website displays) by Jason Allardyce in the Scottish edition of The Sunday Times.]
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Dr Swire's letter to the Lord Advocate
[What follows is the text of Dr Jim Swire's letter to the Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, mentioned in the Private Eye article posted on this blog yesterday.]
As I write, the second appeal is in progress in the High Court. Whilst not wishing to interfere with that process in any way, I would like to bring an associated, and to my mind very serious, issue to your attention.
In the early morning of 21 December 1988, there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, as discussed in the first appeal at Zeist. This break-in gave access to an unknown individual to ‘airside’, through a breech in the night security cordon in terminal 3. The first appeal court accepted that that was the case.
As I understand it the break-in point was close to the facility given over to Iran Air and to that of the baggage assembly shed, where baggage container AV4041 was part loaded on the evening of 21 December.
The evidence about this break-in had ‘disappeared’ for 12 years before Manly caused it to be raised.
This had the bizarre effect of meaning that during the trial, Luqa airport Malta was alone put forward as the airport of origin for the ingestion of the IED, though there was total absence of evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security there. A lacuna which their Lordships described as a serious difficulty for the Crown case.
Yet during the trial Heathrow airport lacked sufficient supporting evidence to be considered as the point of ingestion in the main trial, since the break-in was unknown to their Lordships.
By the time the evidence about Heathrow did surface, the verdict had been reached, and the defence had long abandoned their ‘incrimination’.
Once the appellant in the current appeal had been found guilty, it became immediately justifiable to deny him the ‘presumption of innocence’, to which accused but untried people are entitled. Indeed, ever since the verdict he has been described of course either as ‘the Lockerbie bomber’ or ‘the man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing’. From this different world of presumed guilt, it is difficult to imagine a scenario suggesting that his proven movements and his use of false passports etc bore no relation to the Lockerbie disaster.
Now the information about this break-in was simply not available to the trial court nor the defence in the main trial at Zeist, only becoming known in time for the first appeal, where it was examined against the background of ‘proven guilt’ and did not of course cause the verdict to be overturned.
It seems quite extraordinary that this information was not available sooner to the trial nor to our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990.
If the defence in the main trial had known of it, they might well have pursued their defence of ‘incrimination’ with a great deal more determination than they did in fact show.
The reason for that speculation is that they were to have promoted the use of a (Syrian based) PFLP-GC IED. These devices were specifically designed for introduction into an airport well in advance of their use, being stable indefinitely at ground level. On the other hand if placed within the fuselage of an airliner they were designed to explode around 40 minutes after take-off without any intervention being required at any point, other than their placement within the aircraft. As I’m sure you know, the Lockerbie flight lasted for 38 minutes
Thus the break-in situation at Heathrow with a plane exploding 38 minutes after taking off from there, was a textbook description of how the PFLP-GC devices were designed to work, as had been explained to the main trial court by Herr Gobel of the West German forensic service. Hence it would have been a huge encouragement to the defence incrimination hypothesis.
Evidence was led in the first appeal that the Heathrow guard (the late Mr Manly) who gave this information to the defence after the verdict had been passed had been interviewed by both the Met’s anti-terrorism branch and the police, and had entered the details of his discovery in the Heathrow night security log immediately.
It is therefore very difficult to see how the Crown Office could have been in ignorance of it.
In his remarks to the first appeal court, concerning the break-in evidence, Mr Taylor (for Megrahi’s defence) said:
(from transcripts Pages 11085/6)
'No production or statement was made available
to or discovered by the Defence in the course of the
preparation for this trial gave any notice of the
existence of Mr. Manly or the evidence which it turns
out he is able to give. There was no reasonable basis,
in my submission, for the Defence anticipating that it
would turn out that there had been a breach of security
at the baggage build-up area at Heathrow Airport.
'The circumstances of this case are rather
special. The Defence was informed by the Crown that
14,000 witness statements had been taken in the course
of its inquiry. Defence preparations began more than
10 years after the event. The police had fully
investigated matters at Heathrow in the immediate
aftermath of the disaster. The Crown had prepared for
and conducted a Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990. The
Defence were heavily dependent on the assistance from
the Crown in preparing for trial.
'The Crown had indicated at an early stage
that it would approach the issue of disclosure in
accordance with the principles laid down by Your
Lordships' court in the case of McLeod and that if
possible it would go further than McLeod to assist the
Defence.
'Since it can be taken that the Crown with all
its resources and access to information did not uncover
this evidence in preparing for trial, it would seem
that it would be unreasonable to expect that the
Defence would have guessed that such evidence might
exist and to discover witnesses who were unknown to it.'
Mr Taylor made the assumption that the Crown knew nothing of this matter. On the other hand partial or non-disclosure of relevant material to the defence by the Crown was one of the referral reasons given by the SCCRC as to why there might have been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
For the moment we must avoid harming the appeal process, but there seems no reason why a search should not be made of the copious documents in possession of the Crown to see whether they did in fact have evidence of this break-in. If they have, we need an explanation of why they did not pass it to the defence; if there is no record of them having heard of this evidence then an explanation for that should be sought..
The effect of the absence of the information about the Heathrow break-in was not confined to the Zeist trial. In 1990 (the late) Sheriff Principal John Mowat told our Fatal Accident Inquiry that it must assume that the device had ‘come from Frankfurt’. No mention could be made of the situation at Heathrow, for that was hidden from that court.
I was one of only two relatives who decided to represent himself at the FAI. I did this because I was not satisfied with what I saw as the failure by lawyers representing the relatives to call witnesses and lead evidence requested by us, their clients. I was not alone in this, there was widespread distress among us about this.
During my contribution to the court, I concentrated upon the responsibility of Heathrow to examine hold baggage using the latest technology, but was denied the opportunity to return to the question of Heathrow security, by the Sheriff Principal on the grounds that that had already been covered by our ‘professional representatives’.
Had I known about the break-in, my submissions would have been almost exclusively about Heathrow perimeter security, terminal three night security in particular, and their amazing failure to close the airport pending discovery of who had broken in.
Thus the content of that court was misdirected (inadvertently, since Mowat presumably did not know about the break-in either).
Since I believe that had Heathrow behaved responsibly in the face of this break-in, at a time of heightened terrorist warnings, then my daughter might still be alive, the issue seems crucial to the ability of the FAI to determine accurately what factors contributed to the deaths.
Please will you urgently consider discovery of what, if anything, the Crown Office knew about the Heathrow break-in, and also the question of whether the Fatal Accident Inquiry should be reconvened, in view of this compromising of its purpose to discover all the factors contributing to the deaths. I do not see why this part of the issues raised herein cannot be urgently addressed, appeal or no appeal.
As I write, the second appeal is in progress in the High Court. Whilst not wishing to interfere with that process in any way, I would like to bring an associated, and to my mind very serious, issue to your attention.
In the early morning of 21 December 1988, there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, as discussed in the first appeal at Zeist. This break-in gave access to an unknown individual to ‘airside’, through a breech in the night security cordon in terminal 3. The first appeal court accepted that that was the case.
As I understand it the break-in point was close to the facility given over to Iran Air and to that of the baggage assembly shed, where baggage container AV4041 was part loaded on the evening of 21 December.
The evidence about this break-in had ‘disappeared’ for 12 years before Manly caused it to be raised.
This had the bizarre effect of meaning that during the trial, Luqa airport Malta was alone put forward as the airport of origin for the ingestion of the IED, though there was total absence of evidence as to how Megrahi was supposed to have breached security there. A lacuna which their Lordships described as a serious difficulty for the Crown case.
Yet during the trial Heathrow airport lacked sufficient supporting evidence to be considered as the point of ingestion in the main trial, since the break-in was unknown to their Lordships.
By the time the evidence about Heathrow did surface, the verdict had been reached, and the defence had long abandoned their ‘incrimination’.
Once the appellant in the current appeal had been found guilty, it became immediately justifiable to deny him the ‘presumption of innocence’, to which accused but untried people are entitled. Indeed, ever since the verdict he has been described of course either as ‘the Lockerbie bomber’ or ‘the man found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing’. From this different world of presumed guilt, it is difficult to imagine a scenario suggesting that his proven movements and his use of false passports etc bore no relation to the Lockerbie disaster.
Now the information about this break-in was simply not available to the trial court nor the defence in the main trial at Zeist, only becoming known in time for the first appeal, where it was examined against the background of ‘proven guilt’ and did not of course cause the verdict to be overturned.
It seems quite extraordinary that this information was not available sooner to the trial nor to our Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990.
If the defence in the main trial had known of it, they might well have pursued their defence of ‘incrimination’ with a great deal more determination than they did in fact show.
The reason for that speculation is that they were to have promoted the use of a (Syrian based) PFLP-GC IED. These devices were specifically designed for introduction into an airport well in advance of their use, being stable indefinitely at ground level. On the other hand if placed within the fuselage of an airliner they were designed to explode around 40 minutes after take-off without any intervention being required at any point, other than their placement within the aircraft. As I’m sure you know, the Lockerbie flight lasted for 38 minutes
Thus the break-in situation at Heathrow with a plane exploding 38 minutes after taking off from there, was a textbook description of how the PFLP-GC devices were designed to work, as had been explained to the main trial court by Herr Gobel of the West German forensic service. Hence it would have been a huge encouragement to the defence incrimination hypothesis.
Evidence was led in the first appeal that the Heathrow guard (the late Mr Manly) who gave this information to the defence after the verdict had been passed had been interviewed by both the Met’s anti-terrorism branch and the police, and had entered the details of his discovery in the Heathrow night security log immediately.
It is therefore very difficult to see how the Crown Office could have been in ignorance of it.
In his remarks to the first appeal court, concerning the break-in evidence, Mr Taylor (for Megrahi’s defence) said:
(from transcripts Pages 11085/6)
'No production or statement was made available
to or discovered by the Defence in the course of the
preparation for this trial gave any notice of the
existence of Mr. Manly or the evidence which it turns
out he is able to give. There was no reasonable basis,
in my submission, for the Defence anticipating that it
would turn out that there had been a breach of security
at the baggage build-up area at Heathrow Airport.
'The circumstances of this case are rather
special. The Defence was informed by the Crown that
14,000 witness statements had been taken in the course
of its inquiry. Defence preparations began more than
10 years after the event. The police had fully
investigated matters at Heathrow in the immediate
aftermath of the disaster. The Crown had prepared for
and conducted a Fatal Accident Inquiry in 1990. The
Defence were heavily dependent on the assistance from
the Crown in preparing for trial.
'The Crown had indicated at an early stage
that it would approach the issue of disclosure in
accordance with the principles laid down by Your
Lordships' court in the case of McLeod and that if
possible it would go further than McLeod to assist the
Defence.
'Since it can be taken that the Crown with all
its resources and access to information did not uncover
this evidence in preparing for trial, it would seem
that it would be unreasonable to expect that the
Defence would have guessed that such evidence might
exist and to discover witnesses who were unknown to it.'
Mr Taylor made the assumption that the Crown knew nothing of this matter. On the other hand partial or non-disclosure of relevant material to the defence by the Crown was one of the referral reasons given by the SCCRC as to why there might have been a miscarriage of justice in this case.
For the moment we must avoid harming the appeal process, but there seems no reason why a search should not be made of the copious documents in possession of the Crown to see whether they did in fact have evidence of this break-in. If they have, we need an explanation of why they did not pass it to the defence; if there is no record of them having heard of this evidence then an explanation for that should be sought..
The effect of the absence of the information about the Heathrow break-in was not confined to the Zeist trial. In 1990 (the late) Sheriff Principal John Mowat told our Fatal Accident Inquiry that it must assume that the device had ‘come from Frankfurt’. No mention could be made of the situation at Heathrow, for that was hidden from that court.
I was one of only two relatives who decided to represent himself at the FAI. I did this because I was not satisfied with what I saw as the failure by lawyers representing the relatives to call witnesses and lead evidence requested by us, their clients. I was not alone in this, there was widespread distress among us about this.
During my contribution to the court, I concentrated upon the responsibility of Heathrow to examine hold baggage using the latest technology, but was denied the opportunity to return to the question of Heathrow security, by the Sheriff Principal on the grounds that that had already been covered by our ‘professional representatives’.
Had I known about the break-in, my submissions would have been almost exclusively about Heathrow perimeter security, terminal three night security in particular, and their amazing failure to close the airport pending discovery of who had broken in.
Thus the content of that court was misdirected (inadvertently, since Mowat presumably did not know about the break-in either).
Since I believe that had Heathrow behaved responsibly in the face of this break-in, at a time of heightened terrorist warnings, then my daughter might still be alive, the issue seems crucial to the ability of the FAI to determine accurately what factors contributed to the deaths.
Please will you urgently consider discovery of what, if anything, the Crown Office knew about the Heathrow break-in, and also the question of whether the Fatal Accident Inquiry should be reconvened, in view of this compromising of its purpose to discover all the factors contributing to the deaths. I do not see why this part of the issues raised herein cannot be urgently addressed, appeal or no appeal.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Alan Feraday and Wikipedia
[I am grateful to Patrick Haseldine for supplying me with this copy of his Wikipedia article on Alan Feraday. The article has now, for some reason, been removed from the Wikipedia website.]
Alan Feraday is the retired former head of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent.
After RARDE was subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in 1995, the laboratory came under media and scientific scrutiny in 1996 amid allegations that contaminated equipment had been used in the testing of forensic evidence.[1]
Contents
• 1 Expert witness
• 2 Danny McNamee
• 3 John Berry
• 4 Hassan Assali
• 5 Lockerbie trial
• 6 References
• 7 External links
Expert witness
Alan Feraday has appeared as an expert witness at criminal trials leading to convictions in at least four high-profile cases, three of which were subsequently overturned on appeal.[2] The appeal in the fourth case is ongoing.
Feraday's involvement in a number of other criminal cases was the subject of a parliamentary question in 1996.[3]
Danny McNamee
Feraday was the Crown's main scientific witness in the McNamee case which concerned a terrorist bomb explosion in London's Hyde Park in 1982. McNamee's fingerprint was alleged to have been on a printed circuit board that had been discovered in an IRA arms cache. Feraday testified that a PCB fragment said to have been found at the scene of the Hyde Park bombing, but which had not been forensically tested for explosive residues, came from the same type of circuit board in the arms cache. McNamee, who was convicted in 1987 largely as a result of Feraday's evidence, successfully appealed against his conviction in December 1998.[4]
John Berry
Another case in which Feraday appeared as an expert witness was the 1983 prosecution of businessman John Berry, who was convicted of terrorism conspiracy charges. At the trial, Feraday testified that the timers Berry had sold in the Middle East had been designed specifically for terrorist purposes. Berry spent ten years in jail before his conviction was overturned in September 1993, when four highly qualified witnesses ridiculed the evidence that Feraday had given at the trial.
Commenting on the case, Lord Justice Taylor declared that the nature of Feraday's evidence was "dogmatic in the extreme" and that in future he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics. In a recent development the Home Office has agreed to pay compensation from the public purse to Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Feraday.[5]
Hassan Assali
Libyan national, Hassan Assali, came to Britain in 1965. In 1985, Assali was convicted of constructing electronic timers in contravention of the 1883 Explosives Substances Act on the basis of Feraday's testimony that the timing devices were designed specifically for the triggering of IEDs. Assali's appeal against conviction was rejected in 1986. He applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1998 to review his case and, following a second appeal when other electronics experts disputed the trial evidence given by Feraday, Assali's conviction was quashed in 2005.[6]
Lockerbie trial
Both Alan Feraday and his RARDE colleague, Dr Thomas Hayes, gave expert witness evidence at the Lockerbie trial in 2000. Feraday testified that Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down on 21 December 1988 by a suitcase bomb triggered by an electronic timer made by the Swiss firm Mebo.[7] From a piece of charred clothing allegedly found at the scene of the crash in January 1989, Hayes teased out a tiny piece of timer circuit board in May 1989. The timer fragment was photographed at RARDE but was not tested for explosive residues. Feraday took the timer fragment to the FBI laboratory in the United States where Thomas Thurman was able to confirm that it had come from the Mebo MST-13 timer, twenty of which had been supplied to Libya. The clothing and the timer fragment led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi at the trial, and to his sentence of 27 years' imprisonment in Scotland. Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected in 2002 but he applied in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the case.[8]
On 28 June 2007, the SCCRC referred Megrahi's case back for another appeal on the basis that he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.[9]
The second appeal started at the High Court of Justiciary on 28 April 2009.[10] A documentary film "Lockerbie revisited", which was broadcast on Dutch television on 27 April 2009, focused on the Mebo timer fragment evidence and Feraday's role in its identification.
References
1. ^ Robert Verkaik (1996-05-22). "Innocent beyond doubt". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/innocent-beyond-doubt-1348637.html.
2. ^ "'Doubts' over Lockerbie evidence". BBC News. 2005-08-19. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4164422.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
3. ^ "PQ on the Caddy Inquiry". 1996-12-09. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1996/dec/09/caddy-inquiry.
4. ^ "The Case of Danny McNamee". http://www.scandals.org/mcnamee/index.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
5. ^ Ludwig de Braekeleer. "Alan Feraday and the evidence of the Lockerbie trial". Canada Free Press. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5542. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
6. ^ "Commission refers conviction of Mr Hassan Assali to Court of Appeal". 2003-04-19. http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/news/news_233.htm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
7. ^ "Lockerbie bomb 'in suitcase'". BBC News. 2000-06-15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/792623.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
8. ^ Lucy Christie (2005-08-19). "Lockerbie terror bomber's conviction thrown into doubt". Edinburgh Evening News. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Lockerbie-terror-bombers-conviction-thrown.2653683.jp. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
9. ^ Laura Blue. "Re-Opening the Lockerbie Tragedy". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1639065,00.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
10. ^ Jason Allardyce; Mark Macaskill (2009-05-10). "Lockerbie bomber Megrahi may be allowed home". timesonline. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6256846.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
External links
• "Police investigations of 'politically sensitive' or high profile crimes", Report on the Lockerbie investigation by former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd
• "Lockerbie revisited", Dutch television documentary by Gideon Levy
Alan Feraday is the retired former head of the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE) forensic explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent.
After RARDE was subsumed into the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) in 1995, the laboratory came under media and scientific scrutiny in 1996 amid allegations that contaminated equipment had been used in the testing of forensic evidence.[1]
Contents
• 1 Expert witness
• 2 Danny McNamee
• 3 John Berry
• 4 Hassan Assali
• 5 Lockerbie trial
• 6 References
• 7 External links
Expert witness
Alan Feraday has appeared as an expert witness at criminal trials leading to convictions in at least four high-profile cases, three of which were subsequently overturned on appeal.[2] The appeal in the fourth case is ongoing.
Feraday's involvement in a number of other criminal cases was the subject of a parliamentary question in 1996.[3]
Danny McNamee
Feraday was the Crown's main scientific witness in the McNamee case which concerned a terrorist bomb explosion in London's Hyde Park in 1982. McNamee's fingerprint was alleged to have been on a printed circuit board that had been discovered in an IRA arms cache. Feraday testified that a PCB fragment said to have been found at the scene of the Hyde Park bombing, but which had not been forensically tested for explosive residues, came from the same type of circuit board in the arms cache. McNamee, who was convicted in 1987 largely as a result of Feraday's evidence, successfully appealed against his conviction in December 1998.[4]
John Berry
Another case in which Feraday appeared as an expert witness was the 1983 prosecution of businessman John Berry, who was convicted of terrorism conspiracy charges. At the trial, Feraday testified that the timers Berry had sold in the Middle East had been designed specifically for terrorist purposes. Berry spent ten years in jail before his conviction was overturned in September 1993, when four highly qualified witnesses ridiculed the evidence that Feraday had given at the trial.
Commenting on the case, Lord Justice Taylor declared that the nature of Feraday's evidence was "dogmatic in the extreme" and that in future he should not be allowed to present himself as an expert in the field of electronics. In a recent development the Home Office has agreed to pay compensation from the public purse to Berry because he was jailed on the erroneous evidence of Feraday.[5]
Hassan Assali
Libyan national, Hassan Assali, came to Britain in 1965. In 1985, Assali was convicted of constructing electronic timers in contravention of the 1883 Explosives Substances Act on the basis of Feraday's testimony that the timing devices were designed specifically for the triggering of IEDs. Assali's appeal against conviction was rejected in 1986. He applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in 1998 to review his case and, following a second appeal when other electronics experts disputed the trial evidence given by Feraday, Assali's conviction was quashed in 2005.[6]
Lockerbie trial
Both Alan Feraday and his RARDE colleague, Dr Thomas Hayes, gave expert witness evidence at the Lockerbie trial in 2000. Feraday testified that Pan Am Flight 103 was brought down on 21 December 1988 by a suitcase bomb triggered by an electronic timer made by the Swiss firm Mebo.[7] From a piece of charred clothing allegedly found at the scene of the crash in January 1989, Hayes teased out a tiny piece of timer circuit board in May 1989. The timer fragment was photographed at RARDE but was not tested for explosive residues. Feraday took the timer fragment to the FBI laboratory in the United States where Thomas Thurman was able to confirm that it had come from the Mebo MST-13 timer, twenty of which had been supplied to Libya. The clothing and the timer fragment led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi at the trial, and to his sentence of 27 years' imprisonment in Scotland. Megrahi's appeal against conviction was rejected in 2002 but he applied in 2003 to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to review the case.[8]
On 28 June 2007, the SCCRC referred Megrahi's case back for another appeal on the basis that he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.[9]
The second appeal started at the High Court of Justiciary on 28 April 2009.[10] A documentary film "Lockerbie revisited", which was broadcast on Dutch television on 27 April 2009, focused on the Mebo timer fragment evidence and Feraday's role in its identification.
References
1. ^ Robert Verkaik (1996-05-22). "Innocent beyond doubt". The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/innocent-beyond-doubt-1348637.html.
2. ^ "'Doubts' over Lockerbie evidence". BBC News. 2005-08-19. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4164422.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
3. ^ "PQ on the Caddy Inquiry". 1996-12-09. http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1996/dec/09/caddy-inquiry.
4. ^ "The Case of Danny McNamee". http://www.scandals.org/mcnamee/index.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
5. ^ Ludwig de Braekeleer. "Alan Feraday and the evidence of the Lockerbie trial". Canada Free Press. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5542. Retrieved on 2009-05-14.
6. ^ "Commission refers conviction of Mr Hassan Assali to Court of Appeal". 2003-04-19. http://www.ccrc.gov.uk/news/news_233.htm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
7. ^ "Lockerbie bomb 'in suitcase'". BBC News. 2000-06-15. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/792623.stm. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
8. ^ Lucy Christie (2005-08-19). "Lockerbie terror bomber's conviction thrown into doubt". Edinburgh Evening News. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/lockerbie/Lockerbie-terror-bombers-conviction-thrown.2653683.jp. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
9. ^ Laura Blue. "Re-Opening the Lockerbie Tragedy". TIME. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1639065,00.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
10. ^ Jason Allardyce; Mark Macaskill (2009-05-10). "Lockerbie bomber Megrahi may be allowed home". timesonline. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6256846.ece. Retrieved on 2009-05-13.
External links
• "Police investigations of 'politically sensitive' or high profile crimes", Report on the Lockerbie investigation by former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd
• "Lockerbie revisited", Dutch television documentary by Gideon Levy
Prisoner Transfer Agreement
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill today spoke with United States Attorney General Eric Holder as part of the ongoing consideration of the application for the prisoner transfer for Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.
As part of the process of consideration of the application, Mr MacAskill has already made clear that he would meet groups and individuals who have submitted relevant representations to the Scottish Government and listen to their views.
In addition to today's discussions with Mr Holder, Mr MacAskill will also be listening to the views of representatives of family members of victims from the UK and US as well as the Libyan Government.
Mr MacAskill said:
"As part of my thorough consideration of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement submitted by the Libyan Government on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi, I want to ensure I have all the relevant information available to me before reaching decisions.
"Hearing these representations is a key part of that process.
"As I have said before, any decision will be made on judicial grounds alone. Economic and political considerations have no place in the process."
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement was signed on November 17 2008 and following scrutiny by the Joint Committee of Human Rights at Westminster, was ratified by the UK and Libyan Governments.
Scottish Ministers are now bound by this Agreement and required to consider transfer applications made under it.
The Scottish Government received an application from the Libyan Government in respect of Mr Al Megrahi on May 5, 2009.
The application is now being determined on its merits in line with the Agreement and relevant legislation by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice who will take all relevant considerations into account.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement states that the decision should normally be given within 90 days of being received although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application or for any other reason.
[This is the text of a news release issued today by the Scottish Government. The Sun's report on the topic can be read here, and The Scotsman's here.]
As part of the process of consideration of the application, Mr MacAskill has already made clear that he would meet groups and individuals who have submitted relevant representations to the Scottish Government and listen to their views.
In addition to today's discussions with Mr Holder, Mr MacAskill will also be listening to the views of representatives of family members of victims from the UK and US as well as the Libyan Government.
Mr MacAskill said:
"As part of my thorough consideration of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement submitted by the Libyan Government on behalf of Mr Al Megrahi, I want to ensure I have all the relevant information available to me before reaching decisions.
"Hearing these representations is a key part of that process.
"As I have said before, any decision will be made on judicial grounds alone. Economic and political considerations have no place in the process."
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement was signed on November 17 2008 and following scrutiny by the Joint Committee of Human Rights at Westminster, was ratified by the UK and Libyan Governments.
Scottish Ministers are now bound by this Agreement and required to consider transfer applications made under it.
The Scottish Government received an application from the Libyan Government in respect of Mr Al Megrahi on May 5, 2009.
The application is now being determined on its merits in line with the Agreement and relevant legislation by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice who will take all relevant considerations into account.
The Prisoner Transfer Agreement states that the decision should normally be given within 90 days of being received although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application or for any other reason.
[This is the text of a news release issued today by the Scottish Government. The Sun's report on the topic can be read here, and The Scotsman's here.]
6 Considered Threats Kept Licenses for Aviation
[This is the headline over an article dated 25 June on the website of The New York Times. It reads in part:]
At least six men suspected or convicted of crimes that threaten national security retained their federal aviation licenses, despite antiterrorism laws written after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that required license revocation. Among them was a Libyan sentenced to 27 years in prison by a Scottish court for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
In response to questions from The New York Times, the Transportation Security Administration, which is supposed to root out such individuals, announced that the Federal Aviation Administration suspended the licenses on Thursday. (...)
The two on the most wanted list were the defendants in the Pan Am 103 case, listed by the F.B.I. in 1995 as Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhima. The former is in the public F.A.A. records as Abdelbaset Ali Elmegrahi. While the transliteration of the Arabic differs between the two agencies, both records list the same birth date.
“This data’s dirty,” said Mark Schiffer, who works for the family company along with his father. “People have typos, misspellings, and the data gets truncated or entered in the wrong field.” (...)
But the matching is not difficult, using “fuzzy logic” developed in the banking industry, he said, and with clues like a post office box address in Tripoli used by both the bomber who was convicted, and a co-defendant who was acquitted by the Scottish court, listed on his F.A.A. license as Lamen Khalifa Fhima.
The two men were considered to be Libyan intelligence agents, yet they remained licensed as flight dispatchers, an obscure but critical profession in the airline world. Dispatchers help draw up flight plans, calculate how many people and how much cargo and baggage the plane can carry, and so on.
At least six men suspected or convicted of crimes that threaten national security retained their federal aviation licenses, despite antiterrorism laws written after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that required license revocation. Among them was a Libyan sentenced to 27 years in prison by a Scottish court for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
In response to questions from The New York Times, the Transportation Security Administration, which is supposed to root out such individuals, announced that the Federal Aviation Administration suspended the licenses on Thursday. (...)
The two on the most wanted list were the defendants in the Pan Am 103 case, listed by the F.B.I. in 1995 as Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhima. The former is in the public F.A.A. records as Abdelbaset Ali Elmegrahi. While the transliteration of the Arabic differs between the two agencies, both records list the same birth date.
“This data’s dirty,” said Mark Schiffer, who works for the family company along with his father. “People have typos, misspellings, and the data gets truncated or entered in the wrong field.” (...)
But the matching is not difficult, using “fuzzy logic” developed in the banking industry, he said, and with clues like a post office box address in Tripoli used by both the bomber who was convicted, and a co-defendant who was acquitted by the Scottish court, listed on his F.A.A. license as Lamen Khalifa Fhima.
The two men were considered to be Libyan intelligence agents, yet they remained licensed as flight dispatchers, an obscure but critical profession in the airline world. Dispatchers help draw up flight plans, calculate how many people and how much cargo and baggage the plane can carry, and so on.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
The Truth, Trust, Inconsistencies and Contradictions of Lockerbie
[This is the heading over a lengthy and important recent post on the Ed's Blog City weblog. Reproduced below is the bulk of the text of the post.]
Since the release of the Dutch TV documentary, "Lockerbie:Revisted", a number of curious unexplained inconsistencies in the accounts given by many of those who led the investigation have remained unchallenged. Officially anyway. The documentary maker Gideon Levy asked a number of important questions, crucial to the investigation and pivotal to the whole case, which were quite clearly not satisfactorily answered. Even more astounding, given the position and power of those in the investigation, some of the answers given by those entrusted to find those guilty of the bombing in 1988 directly conflicted with one another.
Mr Levy's first unexplained question relates to the PFLP-GC cell which was exposed by the German BKA and who's members were arrested in Neuss, Germany in October 1988, two months before the Pan Am bombing. They had been discovered with an array of weapons including a radio cassette manipulated into a bomb designed specifically for targeting aircraft. The key member of this group Marwan Khreesat, seemingly known to be the bomb maker, and part of a group planning on attacking American targets, was inexplicably released without charge and was thought to have left Germany for Jordan. After the bombing over Lockerbie, and it was determined that the bomb had been concealed in a radio cassette player, naturally suspicion focussed on the cell that had been exposed in Germany.
Lord Fraser, the former Lord Advocate entrusted in leading the investigation into the bombing, claims that the Scottish authorities were never given the opportunity to question Khreesat at any point with regard to any connection or knowledge about the Lockerbie bombing. Mr Khresat's involvement with the PFLP group and yet subsequent release can only be explained by deducing he was involved with very powerful individuals with the capability of securing such a release, and we can only conclude that the chance to question him was denied due to Khreesat's complex and unclear association with various intelligence and government agencies.
Richard Marquise, head of the FBI investigative team, states that he does not know why Khreesat was released by the Germans, and it is a matter Mr Levy should take up with the German government to clarify. Mr Marquise considers an explanation may be that Khreesat was working for the Palestinian group, as a bomb maker targeting US trains, bases and aircraft, but was also involved with the Jordanian intelligence services who enabled his release from Germany. Lord Fraser however, suggests that the only plausible explanation was that Khreesat was working for the Palestinian group while also involved with US intelligence therefore facilitating his release from Germany and proving someone who the Scottish authorities could not gain access to interview.
This in itself seems a disturbing chain of events and assumptions by those investigating the bombing of 103, and even more inexplicable to those who expect honest endeavour when seeking truth and justice from the investigators, especially given the nature of Khreesat's activities in Germany and his apparent history of expertise in bomb making. This cynicism is merely strengthened when Mr Fraser had stated unequivocally that neither he nor the Scottish prosecutors had ever gained access, despite repeated attempts, "they (the PFLP-GC cell) had simply disappeared", to interview Khreesat, while Mr Marquise seems quite indifferent to the fact that the German authorities had simply released a man of extremely dubious background clearly engaged in activities to cause serious harm to American citizens and institutions.
Mr Marquise does however state that to his knowledge Scottish prosecutors did in fact interview Khreesat, as did the FBI in 1989, clearly contradicting Lord Fraser's position, and that Scottish investigators were happy to accept Khreesat's word during an interview that he knew nothing of the Lockerbie bombing. That a key figure such as Khreesat, the man that according to Mr Marquise was "building the bombs", with the motive, method and capability of attacking US targets, and whether investigators had interviewed him or not, is not conclusively known to either of the two people leading the investigation, is simply incomprehensible.
Mr Levy then enquires about the possibilty of financial payments made to witnesses before, during or subsequent to the trial at Zeist in Holland where Al-Megrahi was found guilty. Inducement had been made to the public by the US authorities to "Give up these terrorists, and we'll give you upto $4 million" by the way of posters with photographs of the two Libyans, and presumably, naturally, by those investigating while interviewing suspects or witnesses. Even if not explicitly offered to those potential witnesses by investigators, the witnesses would be well aware of the financial reward that was available for the successful conviction of the two Libyan's.
Both Lord Fraser and Mr Marquise deny any financial reward, as promised in the posters and adverts issued, was made before or during the trial. However, while Lord Fraser is unaware of any payment subsequent to the trial, Mr Marquise will not comment. The only implication that can be made from this is that the reward offered before the trial and during the investigation was indeed paid to some witnesses after the trial. Any financial reward or inducement to those providing statements would surely render any testimony or information as lacking credibility and does not enhance the supposed search for 'truth' when life changing amounts of money are used as enticement.
So concerned with the implication of rewards to witnesses that Lord Fraser is reluctant to even comment on the suggestion that money was paid to witnesses after the trial without his knowledge.
The focus of the documentary then turns to the most pivotal and crucial piece of evidence found during the investigation and presented at the trial in Zeist. The fragment of microchip discovered 6 months (although the exact period has been disputed) after the disaster, and determined to be the most significant piece of evidence linking the bomb to a Swiss timer manufacturer who had links to Megrahi and Libya.
This particular piece of evidence, the microchip fragment, already somewhat controversial given the unexplained altering of the labels on evidence bags containing the 'charred' fragments, was examined and concluded had originated with the Swiss company called 'Mebo'. They had supplied these timers, it was claimed, to Libya, and Megrahi with his connections and dealings with Mebo, had used this timer in constructing the bomb which he then placed on a flight in Malta, later finding it's way onto the Pan Am flight from Heathrow.
Now it seems, neither Lord Fraser or Mr Marquise can conclusively explain who exactly made this identification of the timer fragment, and where this identification was made. In the UK or in Washington? By Mr Thurman or Mr Feraday? The fragment itself, or as part of the larger circuit board from where the fragment came? By photograph or the actual fragment?
Mr Marquise is certain that this evidence was transported from the UK to the US, and taken to the FBI labs in Washington, by a member of RARDE, thought to be Alan Feraday were the identification was made. The photograph of the tiny piece of fragment of the microchip (evidence PT35b) on a persons finger is claimed to be that of Thomas Thurman of the FBI, who was also the scientist who uncovered the microchips origin and connection to the circuit board made by Mebo. He claims in Mr Levy's film that the microchip was "brought over by UK authorities" to the United States were identification was made, and was conclusively re-identified in the UK by RARDE (Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment).
However, once again there are contradictions in the accounts given. Lord Fraser is adamant that no evidence recovered from the Pan Am debris has ever left his authority or the UK mainland. This would have compromised the whole investigation and could have resulted in accusations of manipulation and, or, contamination of any evidence purity. Detective Chief Supt Mr Stuart Henderson, head of the UK police investigation, also states that the evidence relating to Pan Am 103, any evidence, but specifically the fragment of microchip, never left the UK mainland, but in actual fact the US investigators and the FBI had travelled to the UK to identify the fragment at RARDE with Mr Feraday.
When the public are asked to trust the integrity of those we commend with providing the truth and justice our democratic society demands, expectations can be, on occasion, somewhat unrealistic. Especially when dealing with highly complex issues of international politics, international crimes of nation states and multi-national business corporations. The public however, do expect a genuine and honest search for these truths, and those we charge with this responsibility to fulfil those simplest and most honourable tasks to have carried out their duty, with conscience and integrity.
Those who died over Lockerbie, and the families of the victims deserve at least this. With the pain of a lost loved one however, the relatives of those who died have also had to endure the persistent inaccuracies, the constant contradictions, and the inexplicable decisions taken with respect to those who carried out the atrocity and how their government failed in their loved ones protection. Not by those who wish to seek conspiracies were there are none, and not by those who have ulterior motives for continuing to ask questions. But by the very investigators, police, professionals, experts, lawyers and those in power entrusted with upholding their faith in human kind and seeking justice in the supposed democratic nation we live in today. For those fundamental expectations and hopes are diminished with every conflicting statement, every unexplained area of the investigation, and every inscrutable and unaccountable decision taken by those with power in relation to finding the true perpetrators who organised and carried out the crime over Lockerbie in 1988.
Since the release of the Dutch TV documentary, "Lockerbie:Revisted", a number of curious unexplained inconsistencies in the accounts given by many of those who led the investigation have remained unchallenged. Officially anyway. The documentary maker Gideon Levy asked a number of important questions, crucial to the investigation and pivotal to the whole case, which were quite clearly not satisfactorily answered. Even more astounding, given the position and power of those in the investigation, some of the answers given by those entrusted to find those guilty of the bombing in 1988 directly conflicted with one another.
Mr Levy's first unexplained question relates to the PFLP-GC cell which was exposed by the German BKA and who's members were arrested in Neuss, Germany in October 1988, two months before the Pan Am bombing. They had been discovered with an array of weapons including a radio cassette manipulated into a bomb designed specifically for targeting aircraft. The key member of this group Marwan Khreesat, seemingly known to be the bomb maker, and part of a group planning on attacking American targets, was inexplicably released without charge and was thought to have left Germany for Jordan. After the bombing over Lockerbie, and it was determined that the bomb had been concealed in a radio cassette player, naturally suspicion focussed on the cell that had been exposed in Germany.
Lord Fraser, the former Lord Advocate entrusted in leading the investigation into the bombing, claims that the Scottish authorities were never given the opportunity to question Khreesat at any point with regard to any connection or knowledge about the Lockerbie bombing. Mr Khresat's involvement with the PFLP group and yet subsequent release can only be explained by deducing he was involved with very powerful individuals with the capability of securing such a release, and we can only conclude that the chance to question him was denied due to Khreesat's complex and unclear association with various intelligence and government agencies.
Richard Marquise, head of the FBI investigative team, states that he does not know why Khreesat was released by the Germans, and it is a matter Mr Levy should take up with the German government to clarify. Mr Marquise considers an explanation may be that Khreesat was working for the Palestinian group, as a bomb maker targeting US trains, bases and aircraft, but was also involved with the Jordanian intelligence services who enabled his release from Germany. Lord Fraser however, suggests that the only plausible explanation was that Khreesat was working for the Palestinian group while also involved with US intelligence therefore facilitating his release from Germany and proving someone who the Scottish authorities could not gain access to interview.
This in itself seems a disturbing chain of events and assumptions by those investigating the bombing of 103, and even more inexplicable to those who expect honest endeavour when seeking truth and justice from the investigators, especially given the nature of Khreesat's activities in Germany and his apparent history of expertise in bomb making. This cynicism is merely strengthened when Mr Fraser had stated unequivocally that neither he nor the Scottish prosecutors had ever gained access, despite repeated attempts, "they (the PFLP-GC cell) had simply disappeared", to interview Khreesat, while Mr Marquise seems quite indifferent to the fact that the German authorities had simply released a man of extremely dubious background clearly engaged in activities to cause serious harm to American citizens and institutions.
Mr Marquise does however state that to his knowledge Scottish prosecutors did in fact interview Khreesat, as did the FBI in 1989, clearly contradicting Lord Fraser's position, and that Scottish investigators were happy to accept Khreesat's word during an interview that he knew nothing of the Lockerbie bombing. That a key figure such as Khreesat, the man that according to Mr Marquise was "building the bombs", with the motive, method and capability of attacking US targets, and whether investigators had interviewed him or not, is not conclusively known to either of the two people leading the investigation, is simply incomprehensible.
Mr Levy then enquires about the possibilty of financial payments made to witnesses before, during or subsequent to the trial at Zeist in Holland where Al-Megrahi was found guilty. Inducement had been made to the public by the US authorities to "Give up these terrorists, and we'll give you upto $4 million" by the way of posters with photographs of the two Libyans, and presumably, naturally, by those investigating while interviewing suspects or witnesses. Even if not explicitly offered to those potential witnesses by investigators, the witnesses would be well aware of the financial reward that was available for the successful conviction of the two Libyan's.
Both Lord Fraser and Mr Marquise deny any financial reward, as promised in the posters and adverts issued, was made before or during the trial. However, while Lord Fraser is unaware of any payment subsequent to the trial, Mr Marquise will not comment. The only implication that can be made from this is that the reward offered before the trial and during the investigation was indeed paid to some witnesses after the trial. Any financial reward or inducement to those providing statements would surely render any testimony or information as lacking credibility and does not enhance the supposed search for 'truth' when life changing amounts of money are used as enticement.
So concerned with the implication of rewards to witnesses that Lord Fraser is reluctant to even comment on the suggestion that money was paid to witnesses after the trial without his knowledge.
The focus of the documentary then turns to the most pivotal and crucial piece of evidence found during the investigation and presented at the trial in Zeist. The fragment of microchip discovered 6 months (although the exact period has been disputed) after the disaster, and determined to be the most significant piece of evidence linking the bomb to a Swiss timer manufacturer who had links to Megrahi and Libya.
This particular piece of evidence, the microchip fragment, already somewhat controversial given the unexplained altering of the labels on evidence bags containing the 'charred' fragments, was examined and concluded had originated with the Swiss company called 'Mebo'. They had supplied these timers, it was claimed, to Libya, and Megrahi with his connections and dealings with Mebo, had used this timer in constructing the bomb which he then placed on a flight in Malta, later finding it's way onto the Pan Am flight from Heathrow.
Now it seems, neither Lord Fraser or Mr Marquise can conclusively explain who exactly made this identification of the timer fragment, and where this identification was made. In the UK or in Washington? By Mr Thurman or Mr Feraday? The fragment itself, or as part of the larger circuit board from where the fragment came? By photograph or the actual fragment?
Mr Marquise is certain that this evidence was transported from the UK to the US, and taken to the FBI labs in Washington, by a member of RARDE, thought to be Alan Feraday were the identification was made. The photograph of the tiny piece of fragment of the microchip (evidence PT35b) on a persons finger is claimed to be that of Thomas Thurman of the FBI, who was also the scientist who uncovered the microchips origin and connection to the circuit board made by Mebo. He claims in Mr Levy's film that the microchip was "brought over by UK authorities" to the United States were identification was made, and was conclusively re-identified in the UK by RARDE (Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment).
However, once again there are contradictions in the accounts given. Lord Fraser is adamant that no evidence recovered from the Pan Am debris has ever left his authority or the UK mainland. This would have compromised the whole investigation and could have resulted in accusations of manipulation and, or, contamination of any evidence purity. Detective Chief Supt Mr Stuart Henderson, head of the UK police investigation, also states that the evidence relating to Pan Am 103, any evidence, but specifically the fragment of microchip, never left the UK mainland, but in actual fact the US investigators and the FBI had travelled to the UK to identify the fragment at RARDE with Mr Feraday.
When the public are asked to trust the integrity of those we commend with providing the truth and justice our democratic society demands, expectations can be, on occasion, somewhat unrealistic. Especially when dealing with highly complex issues of international politics, international crimes of nation states and multi-national business corporations. The public however, do expect a genuine and honest search for these truths, and those we charge with this responsibility to fulfil those simplest and most honourable tasks to have carried out their duty, with conscience and integrity.
Those who died over Lockerbie, and the families of the victims deserve at least this. With the pain of a lost loved one however, the relatives of those who died have also had to endure the persistent inaccuracies, the constant contradictions, and the inexplicable decisions taken with respect to those who carried out the atrocity and how their government failed in their loved ones protection. Not by those who wish to seek conspiracies were there are none, and not by those who have ulterior motives for continuing to ask questions. But by the very investigators, police, professionals, experts, lawyers and those in power entrusted with upholding their faith in human kind and seeking justice in the supposed democratic nation we live in today. For those fundamental expectations and hopes are diminished with every conflicting statement, every unexplained area of the investigation, and every inscrutable and unaccountable decision taken by those with power in relation to finding the true perpetrators who organised and carried out the crime over Lockerbie in 1988.
Sunday, 21 June 2009
Megrahi prosecutor: I would not have let evidence go to US
Lord Fraser says alleged transfer of timer to FBI lab would have compromised the Lockerbie bomb trial
Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, has revealed he was unaware that evidence presented at his trial seems to have left Britain beforehand.
The Tory peer has told a television documentary that he did not know that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with during the move.
The original trial heard the fragment was found in a piece of recovered clothing in a wood 25 miles from Lockerbie, six months after the bombing in December 1988.
Prosecutors linked it to Megrahi after Thomas Thurman of the FBI identified it as part of a sophisticated timer used to detonate explosives. He said it was made by Mebo, a Swiss firm which supplied the component only to Libya and the East German Stasi.
Fraser’s comments were made in a Dutch documentary called “Lockerbie Revisited”. (...)
The Libyan authorities have asked Scottish ministers to transfer Megrahi to their custody under the terms of a transfer deal brokered by London and Tripoli, but a condition of the treaty is that prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, has revealed that he does not believe he will live to clear his name. He said he may drop his appeal to try to spend his final days with his family. (...)
He said his low spirits as a result of being away from his wife, children and parents, were reducing the chances of his body responding to medical treatment and that there was now little to keep him here.
He made his views known last week in a meeting with Christine Grahame, the nationalist MSP, who has taken an interest in his case. He told her he was happy for his views to be publicised although his lawyer has stipulated that he cannot be directly quoted.
Megrahi believes he will die by the end of the year, long before his appeal is expected to conclude and complains that prison is reducing his lifespan. He claims his isolation and depression are reducing the chance of his body responding to the medical treatment he receives. If your mood is low the body will not respond properly to medication to fight the disease, he told Grahame.
There is no consideration in the criminal justice system for his health, Megrahi said. People do not care about his condition and the system is unfair, he added.
The Scottish prison service says it always provides seriously ill prisoners with support.
Megrahi regards as perverse the fact that his transfer to Libya would not be guaranteed even if he agrees first to drop his appeal, but he feels he may have to take the gamble.
[From an article by Jason Allardyce in today's edition of The Sunday Times.]
Lord Fraser, the former lord advocate who charged the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, has revealed he was unaware that evidence presented at his trial seems to have left Britain beforehand.
The Tory peer has told a television documentary that he did not know that a fragment of circuit board linked to the bomb had allegedly been moved to an FBI lab in Washington for analysis ahead of the trial and conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Fraser said he would not have agreed to the step because it could have left the crown open to accusations at the trial that the circuit board could have been damaged or tampered with during the move.
The original trial heard the fragment was found in a piece of recovered clothing in a wood 25 miles from Lockerbie, six months after the bombing in December 1988.
Prosecutors linked it to Megrahi after Thomas Thurman of the FBI identified it as part of a sophisticated timer used to detonate explosives. He said it was made by Mebo, a Swiss firm which supplied the component only to Libya and the East German Stasi.
Fraser’s comments were made in a Dutch documentary called “Lockerbie Revisited”. (...)
The Libyan authorities have asked Scottish ministers to transfer Megrahi to their custody under the terms of a transfer deal brokered by London and Tripoli, but a condition of the treaty is that prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing.
Megrahi, who is terminally ill with prostate cancer, has revealed that he does not believe he will live to clear his name. He said he may drop his appeal to try to spend his final days with his family. (...)
He said his low spirits as a result of being away from his wife, children and parents, were reducing the chances of his body responding to medical treatment and that there was now little to keep him here.
He made his views known last week in a meeting with Christine Grahame, the nationalist MSP, who has taken an interest in his case. He told her he was happy for his views to be publicised although his lawyer has stipulated that he cannot be directly quoted.
Megrahi believes he will die by the end of the year, long before his appeal is expected to conclude and complains that prison is reducing his lifespan. He claims his isolation and depression are reducing the chance of his body responding to the medical treatment he receives. If your mood is low the body will not respond properly to medication to fight the disease, he told Grahame.
There is no consideration in the criminal justice system for his health, Megrahi said. People do not care about his condition and the system is unfair, he added.
The Scottish prison service says it always provides seriously ill prisoners with support.
Megrahi regards as perverse the fact that his transfer to Libya would not be guaranteed even if he agrees first to drop his appeal, but he feels he may have to take the gamble.
[From an article by Jason Allardyce in today's edition of The Sunday Times.]
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Megrahi will not return home as a hero
[This is the headline over an article, which I have just discovered, by Ben Borland in the edition of the Sunday Express of 14 June. It reads as follows:]
Colonel Gaddafi has vowed not to give Megrahi a hero’s welcome if he is returned to Libya next month.
Tripoli has agreed to keep the homecoming “very low profile” amid fears of hindering the country’s renewed relations with the West.
It is understood the Scottish Government is concerned about a repeat of triumphant scenes when Megrahi’s co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was acquitted of the bombing in 2001.
A source close to the Libyan authorities said: “A triumphant return is not on the cards.
“Megrahi will most likely end up in a hospice, rather than a villa overlooking the Mediterranean.”
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has until the end of July to rule on Megrahi.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The decision will be one made on judicial grounds. Economic and political considerations have no place in the process.”
Colonel Gaddafi has vowed not to give Megrahi a hero’s welcome if he is returned to Libya next month.
Tripoli has agreed to keep the homecoming “very low profile” amid fears of hindering the country’s renewed relations with the West.
It is understood the Scottish Government is concerned about a repeat of triumphant scenes when Megrahi’s co-accused Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was acquitted of the bombing in 2001.
A source close to the Libyan authorities said: “A triumphant return is not on the cards.
“Megrahi will most likely end up in a hospice, rather than a villa overlooking the Mediterranean.”
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has until the end of July to rule on Megrahi.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “The decision will be one made on judicial grounds. Economic and political considerations have no place in the process.”
Megrahi in quandary over option to abandon court fight
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has still not decided whether to abandon his fight to clear his name, an MSP said after visiting him yesterday.
Christine Grahame, SNP member for the south of Scotland, said Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was struggling to make the choice while suffering "severe pain" from prostate cancer.
Libyan authorities have filed an application to have him moved to his home country, but the transfer cannot go ahead while legal proceedings are still ongoing.
Al Megrahi is currently pursuing an appeal against his conviction, but he would have to drop it in order to get back to Africa and see his family.
The 57-year-old, serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 people, is thought unlikely to survive long enough for a second part of the appeal continuing next spring.
After her 90-minute visit to Greenock Prison yesterday afternoon, Ms Grahame said: "He is a man who is in a great quandary about what he should do. He's got this major decision to take at some point.
"Overall I think he is dealing very well with the circumstances he finds himself in.
"He is in severe pain. His health is deteriorating, both his physical and emotional health.
"I think the issue for Mr Megrahi is that he would want the appeal to continue but at the same time he is desperate to see his family."
Ms Grahame is certain that his relatives would press for a public inquiry in the event of his death, she added.
The South of Scotland MSP also spoke of a Dutch TV documentary that she said showed that a key piece of evidence was taken out of Scotland without the proper documentation. The circuit board used as a bomb trigger had been removed to America, she said, undermining the reliability of Al Megrahi's conviction.
"Lord Peter Fraser, who was the Lord Advocate at the time, has said it never left Scotland - so my challenge to the Lord Fraser is, what did the Crown know at the time about that circuit board, what did you know, can you come and tell us and tell the public?" she added.
Lord Fraser declined to comment.
[The above is The Herald's report on Christine Grahame MSP's meeting with Abdelbaset Megrahi on Tuesday, 16 June. The report on the BBC News website can be read here; and that on the Southern Reporter's website here.]
Christine Grahame, SNP member for the south of Scotland, said Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was struggling to make the choice while suffering "severe pain" from prostate cancer.
Libyan authorities have filed an application to have him moved to his home country, but the transfer cannot go ahead while legal proceedings are still ongoing.
Al Megrahi is currently pursuing an appeal against his conviction, but he would have to drop it in order to get back to Africa and see his family.
The 57-year-old, serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 people, is thought unlikely to survive long enough for a second part of the appeal continuing next spring.
After her 90-minute visit to Greenock Prison yesterday afternoon, Ms Grahame said: "He is a man who is in a great quandary about what he should do. He's got this major decision to take at some point.
"Overall I think he is dealing very well with the circumstances he finds himself in.
"He is in severe pain. His health is deteriorating, both his physical and emotional health.
"I think the issue for Mr Megrahi is that he would want the appeal to continue but at the same time he is desperate to see his family."
Ms Grahame is certain that his relatives would press for a public inquiry in the event of his death, she added.
The South of Scotland MSP also spoke of a Dutch TV documentary that she said showed that a key piece of evidence was taken out of Scotland without the proper documentation. The circuit board used as a bomb trigger had been removed to America, she said, undermining the reliability of Al Megrahi's conviction.
"Lord Peter Fraser, who was the Lord Advocate at the time, has said it never left Scotland - so my challenge to the Lord Fraser is, what did the Crown know at the time about that circuit board, what did you know, can you come and tell us and tell the public?" she added.
Lord Fraser declined to comment.
[The above is The Herald's report on Christine Grahame MSP's meeting with Abdelbaset Megrahi on Tuesday, 16 June. The report on the BBC News website can be read here; and that on the Southern Reporter's website here.]
Tuesday, 16 June 2009
MSP to have second meeting with Megrahi
[A Member of the Scottish Parliament] is meeting the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in prison. Christine Grahame will visit Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi in Greenock Prison.
A spokesman for the SNP MSP said she will make a "substantive" statement following the visit.
Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year and later failed to be freed on bail pending his appeal, which got under way at the end of April in Edinburgh.
Libyan authorities have applied for Al Megrahi to be moved to Libya under a prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the UK.
But no decision on this can be made by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill if there are outstanding legal proceedings.
Ms Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, paid an hour-long visit to Al Megrahi last month in Greenock Prison, where he is serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people.
After the last visit she said: "The man is obviously very ill and he is desperate to see his family - absolutely desperate to see his family - so, whatever it takes, that's the priority."
Asked if Al Megrahi plans to press on with his appeal, she said: "I can't say that - that is for him to say through his lawyers."
[From an article published today on the website of the Midlothian Advertiser. The report is attributed to the Press Association news agency.]
A spokesman for the SNP MSP said she will make a "substantive" statement following the visit.
Al Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year and later failed to be freed on bail pending his appeal, which got under way at the end of April in Edinburgh.
Libyan authorities have applied for Al Megrahi to be moved to Libya under a prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the UK.
But no decision on this can be made by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill if there are outstanding legal proceedings.
Ms Grahame, MSP for South of Scotland, paid an hour-long visit to Al Megrahi last month in Greenock Prison, where he is serving a life sentence for the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people.
After the last visit she said: "The man is obviously very ill and he is desperate to see his family - absolutely desperate to see his family - so, whatever it takes, that's the priority."
Asked if Al Megrahi plans to press on with his appeal, she said: "I can't say that - that is for him to say through his lawyers."
[From an article published today on the website of the Midlothian Advertiser. The report is attributed to the Press Association news agency.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)