[Two weeks ago The Sunday Times ran, as if it were news, a report based on a seventeen year old US State Department press release claiming that Abdelbaset Megrahi was involved in Libya'a WMD programme. No evidence to this effect was led at his trial. His lawyer, Tony Kelly, commented that the documents were “unsubstantiated and unattributed intelligence rumours. If there was any evidence backing any of this up I am absolutely certain it would have been introduced at trial, and it wasn’t,” he said.
Today The Sunday Times carries a report stating that the UK Parliament's Scottish Affairs Committee has asked the newspaper to provide it with a copy of the documents. It reads in part:]
A Westminster committee investigating the circumstances surrounding the release of the Lockerbie bomber has asked for documents obtained by The Sunday Times that appear to implicate the Libyan in the purchase of chemical weapons.
The papers will form part of the Scottish Affairs committee’s inquiry into the decision earlier this year to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds.
The committee will examine the arrangements between the UK and Scottish governments, and has invited Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister who granted Megrahi his freedom, Alex Salmond and Jack Straw, the UK justice secretary, to give evidence. (...)
The papers, dated 1992, were based on information gathered by the CIA to bolster the case against Libya for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, which killed 270 people.
Ben Wallace, the [Conservative] MP for Lancaster and Wyre and a committee member, said the Megrahi deal had damaged relations with the US. “I am trying to demonstrate to people that Megrahi was a seriously bad man and that this government decided Libyan trade was more important than American trade,” said Wallace.
“These documents will feature because we’ll be asking government officials why they wanted someone like this, who was engaged in terrorist activities, not to die in prison, yet have allowed 140 people in the UK to die in prison of cancer since 2001?”
Sunday, 13 December 2009
Saturday, 12 December 2009
A treat from Caustic Logic
The three most recent Lockerbie-related posts on Adam (Caustic Logic) Larson's blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond are a delight. They can be read here, here and here.
I am confident that all of my readers, unlike some of those commenting directly on Adam's posts, will appreciate his beguiling irony.
I am confident that all of my readers, unlike some of those commenting directly on Adam's posts, will appreciate his beguiling irony.
Wednesday, 9 December 2009
Report to slate MacAskill over early release of Megrahi
[This is the headline over a speculative report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will face stinging criticism in a parliamentary report over the way he handled the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Members of Holyrood's justice committee have made it clear that they do not believe the minister followed Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidelines in allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was dying of prostate cancer.
They will say the minister should have sought a second opinion supporting the prognosis that Megrahi only had three months to live.
They will also criticise him for the flimsiness of the medical evidence. (...)
Despite only taking verbal evidence in one session from the minister and his officials and receiving a limited number of written submissions, a majority of MSPs on the committee decided that they would produce a final report in the new year. The conclusions are supported by all the opposition parties.
The Scotsman understands that they also intend to reprimand the minister for failing to get written assurances that Megrahi would not receive a hero's welcome when he returned to Libya. The minister admitted to them he only received verbal promises and never asked for them in writing. (...)
Some organisations, such as the US government, refused to give evidence and the inquiry was unable to look into the dealings between the UK government and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi which led to the prisoner transfer agreement, which was ultimately rejected by Mr MacAskill. This is being looked at by a separate inquiry in Westminster.
Former minister Stewart Maxwell, an SNP member of the justice committee, said: "The fact that this inquiry has had to be brought to an end so soon just underlines how Kenny MacAskill took the right decisions for the right reasons, as every scrap of information demonstrated."
The Scottish Government argue that the limited inquiry has only confirmed that Mr MacAskill made the decision correctly.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The justice secretary took the right decision for the right reasons, based on the recommendations of the parole board and the prison governor, and supported by the medical report submitted by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, whose clinical assessment was that a three-month life expectancy was a reasonable estimate for this patient."
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will face stinging criticism in a parliamentary report over the way he handled the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Members of Holyrood's justice committee have made it clear that they do not believe the minister followed Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidelines in allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to go home to Libya on compassionate grounds because he was dying of prostate cancer.
They will say the minister should have sought a second opinion supporting the prognosis that Megrahi only had three months to live.
They will also criticise him for the flimsiness of the medical evidence. (...)
Despite only taking verbal evidence in one session from the minister and his officials and receiving a limited number of written submissions, a majority of MSPs on the committee decided that they would produce a final report in the new year. The conclusions are supported by all the opposition parties.
The Scotsman understands that they also intend to reprimand the minister for failing to get written assurances that Megrahi would not receive a hero's welcome when he returned to Libya. The minister admitted to them he only received verbal promises and never asked for them in writing. (...)
Some organisations, such as the US government, refused to give evidence and the inquiry was unable to look into the dealings between the UK government and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi which led to the prisoner transfer agreement, which was ultimately rejected by Mr MacAskill. This is being looked at by a separate inquiry in Westminster.
Former minister Stewart Maxwell, an SNP member of the justice committee, said: "The fact that this inquiry has had to be brought to an end so soon just underlines how Kenny MacAskill took the right decisions for the right reasons, as every scrap of information demonstrated."
The Scottish Government argue that the limited inquiry has only confirmed that Mr MacAskill made the decision correctly.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "The justice secretary took the right decision for the right reasons, based on the recommendations of the parole board and the prison governor, and supported by the medical report submitted by Dr Andrew Fraser, director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, whose clinical assessment was that a three-month life expectancy was a reasonable estimate for this patient."
Tuesday, 8 December 2009
Lockerbie bomber release inquiry could be closed
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
A Scottish Parliament committee could [today] decide to close its inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The justice committee has been investigating the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, on compassionate grounds.
It is due to decide whether the move by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has been adequately scrutinised.
The committee has already been told that medical advice on Megrahi's health was "quite clear".
MSPs must now decide whether there are further issues to pursue surrounding the release of the Libyan in August this year.
Last week the committee heard from Mr MacAskill, who insisted medical advice had been clear. (...)
Megrahi's release angered many US families of the victims of the bombing.
However, the committee inquiry is not considering whether the justice secretary was correct to conclude that compassionate release was justified.
[The above report has now been superseded by one which contains the following:
"The Scottish Parliament inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber is to be closed. (...)
"MSPs on the cross-party committee have decided not to take any further evidence, although they will still publish a report, due next year. (...)
"The inquiry has already heard from Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who insisted the medical advice surrounding the release which was given had been clear.
"MSPs, who were considering whether there were further issues to pursue surrounding the release of the Libyan in August this year, decided to bring the inquiry to an end."
The inquiry is, and always was, a complete waste of time and resources, given that among the other matters excluded from the scope of the committee's inquiry are:
• the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988
• the trial and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for murder, his subsequent appeals against conviction, or the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to his case
• the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement, or the content of that agreement.]
A Scottish Parliament committee could [today] decide to close its inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The justice committee has been investigating the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who has terminal cancer, on compassionate grounds.
It is due to decide whether the move by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has been adequately scrutinised.
The committee has already been told that medical advice on Megrahi's health was "quite clear".
MSPs must now decide whether there are further issues to pursue surrounding the release of the Libyan in August this year.
Last week the committee heard from Mr MacAskill, who insisted medical advice had been clear. (...)
Megrahi's release angered many US families of the victims of the bombing.
However, the committee inquiry is not considering whether the justice secretary was correct to conclude that compassionate release was justified.
[The above report has now been superseded by one which contains the following:
"The Scottish Parliament inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber is to be closed. (...)
"MSPs on the cross-party committee have decided not to take any further evidence, although they will still publish a report, due next year. (...)
"The inquiry has already heard from Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who insisted the medical advice surrounding the release which was given had been clear.
"MSPs, who were considering whether there were further issues to pursue surrounding the release of the Libyan in August this year, decided to bring the inquiry to an end."
The inquiry is, and always was, a complete waste of time and resources, given that among the other matters excluded from the scope of the committee's inquiry are:
• the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988
• the trial and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for murder, his subsequent appeals against conviction, or the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to his case
• the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement, or the content of that agreement.]
Monday, 7 December 2009
Dr Swire on "Pan Am 103: what really happened?"
[What follows is a response by Dr Jim Swire to some of the comments made by readers on the Pan Am 103: what really happened? thread.]
I must congratulate 'Rolfe' and Patrick Haseldine on the interesting set of comments re Pik Botha, Carlsson and Pan Am 103. At the same time I hope they will forgive me for pointing out that to us the relatives, this all falls into the category of 'speculation'.
That is so due to the flat refusal of successive UK governments despite our lobbying of every single Prime Minister since 1988 to allow any meaningful inquiry into the events leading up to the disaster. Had they fulfilled their legal obligation to provide such an inquiry, then hopefully much of this speculation would have reached at least the level of confidence given to those aspects of the disaster which were the subject of the Zeist court and inquiries.
Personally I entered the Zeist courtroom expecting to see the murderers of my daughter condemned and punished. The effect was the opposite, the evidence and the way in which it was derived and used, convinced me that neither Megrahi nor Fhimah were guilty as charged. But I was left with some relatively reliable information, compared with that derived from the best efforts of those people, may of them so well meaning, who previously had had no access whatever to any means of penetrating the official wall of silence, being obliged to speculate as a result of their (and our) exclusion.
As 'Rolfe' says, if it is true that Botha's party had reached London early, enabling the embassy 'on the spur of the moment' to book them on the earlier PA101, I see nothing suspicious in that, but as 'Rolfe' points out, if it is true that they were rebooked onto PA101 at the last minute, 'but some of their retinue could not get seats on that flight and thereupon returned to South Africa' that would be very, very interesting.
The logical speculation from that point would be that they must have known that PA103 was unsafe, for PA103 was only 2/3 full that night. 'Rolfe''s conclusion that such a development would constitute support for knowledge of a much more specific warning than those provided in the 'Helsinki' warning and other warnings already known to have been received would be valid. Patrick correctly confirms that not a single member of the Botha team was on PA103.
Why was PA103 only 2/3 full just before Christmas?
Is 'Rolfe' able to provide chapter and verse for his comment that 'instead of taking up their existing bookings on PA103 [they] just turned round and went home'?
The Zeist court had little to say about any regime's involvement, nor about those who might have been involved in the run up to the massacre itself. The nearest it came to that, for me, was the detailed account provided by the Germans of the PFLP-GC's technology, and of their known workshop on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria's capital city. They were making IEDs which however long they had lain about in an airport before being put aboard an aircraft, were still obligated to explode around 40 minutes following take off, without anyone in the relevant airport having to touch them, or even to open any container which they might be hidden in. An irrefutable fact is that my daughter's death occurred 38 minutes after her plane had left the Heathrow tarmac, just as would have been inevitable had one of these IEDs been used.
The court did not in my view exclude the use of this technology, far from it, it believed the prosecution's speculation - for that was all it was - that Megrahi (whose identification as 'the clothes buyer' was blatantly inadequate) had somehow while passing through Luqa airport penetrated security there (not supported by any evidence), to enable a profoundly unwise route of attack through 2 changes of aircraft, using a digital timer perfectly capable of being set to explode over mid-Atlantic.
Their Lordships were however operating under a severe Handicap, due to the suppression of vitally significant evidence (see below under DC Crawford).
Possible motivation was covered in terms of the past experiences of both Libya and Iran, at the hands of US military forces, but motivation for the assassination of Botha, Carlsson or the US McKee intelligence team was not established. The court's (the defence's actually) interest in Syria was snubbed by that country, leading to the inexplicable abandonment of their 'defence of incrimination' by the Megrahi defence team.
Since Megrahi's second appeal was stopped, his defence team have started to put some very interesting material on the web at and this is where investigating policeman Harry Bell enters the scene. Harry recorded in a diary written while on the island of Malta, how US official(s) was/were suggesting the payment of '$10,000 up front' with' $2,000,000 to follow, to Tony Gauci plus a payment of $1,000,000 to Gauci's brother Paul.
It is not clear to me whether Bell passed this on to the Crown Office, nor what his response was to the US agent suggesting it.
The astoundingly amateurish attitude attributed to DC Crawford, as to the significance of Carlsson in all this supports my worst fears as to the competence of the police force involved to cope with so great a disaster and investigation. If DC Crawford or his force really was prepared to write off the possible significance of Carlsson on the hearsay evidence of a single librarian, that says a great deal about the confidence we should have in other aspects of the investigation. The agreement to this decision by Stuart Henderson does little to reassure either, for Henderson has publicly claimed in front of a crowd of US relatives that he 'would like to wring the neck of anyone who disagreed with the police findings.' Do not these sound rather like the words of someone trying to defend something he knows to be indefensible?
Nowhere are doubts about the calibre of the investigating police more worrying than in the case of the Heathrow break-in. That occurred in the very early morning of 21/12/88 through the appropriate sector of Heathrow security to give access to where the PanAm containers were being loaded that evening. It was known to Heathrow through the night security file records on the morning of 21/12/88, and to the Met's special branch, who interviewed Manley, the night security guard in January 1989.
Yet the information about this break-in 'disappeared' for 12 years, till after the Zeist court had convicted Megrahi.
I wrote to the Crown Office to ask them if they had known about the break-in during these 12 years, and they denied knowing. They then made the disingenuous comment that the break-in didn't matter because the first appeal did know but did not overturn the verdict.
Think about their Lordships in the trial who said that the absence of evidence as to how Megrahi penetrated security at Luqa was 'a difficulty for the Crown', and compare that with what they were denied knowing - a fully documented break-in appropriate in time and position to the spot from which the fatal aircraft was actually loaded with its cargo. It seems pretty obvious to me that had they known they would have had to have found Megrahi not guilty, since Heathrow was strongly supported by evidence, whereas Luqa was not.
But glossing over the Crown's outrageous misrepresentation of the likely effect of the missing evidence upon the court's verdict, and assuming that they really didn't know during those 12 years, then it looks most likely that since the Met would surely have told the investigating Scots about it, the Scottish police probably failed to pass it on to the Crown Office.
What would be their motive for that? Well again we speculate, but the Heathrow evidence was desperately dangerous to the hypothesis that the device had come from Malta, simply because the clothing had. The annals of police investigations are full of instances where the driving hypothesis has destroyed the objectivity of the investigating force, and caused a tunnel vision where only matters that fit that hypothesis are considered.
Owing to the refusal to launch a properly empowered inquiry, it has been impossible thus far to probe the work of the Dumfries and Galloway police, nor indeed the Thatcher government's decision to put them in charge rather than the more experienced teams available in London.
In speculating about how much was known beforehand about the impending disaster, and by whom, we are discussing the worst fear that we have about this cruel business, the real possibility that our families were allowed to march on board an aircraft known by some of those who should have protected it to be doomed. To resolve that issue really would be a huge help in advancing our recovery from the loss of those we loved. Even if it turned out to be true, we would rather know the truth than be left any longer in such doubt, through the absence of a properly endowed inquiry.
Lest there be any doubt about it by the way our Fatal Accident Inquiry, though also denied knowledge of the Heathrow break-in, concluded that the disaster was preventable and that the aircraft was under the 'Host State Protection of the United Kingdom'.
I am a signatory to the appeal put out by JFM (Justice for Megrahi) to the UN for a UN based inquiry. The silence from them thus far is as dense as that from Whitehall has been for 21 years. The issues about which we speculate here appear more appropriate for a UN inquiry than simply a UK one, but the latter at least is obligatory under UK law.
Fortunately current ECHR legislation in this country entitles us as next of kin of the dead, to a suitably empowered inquiry.
Absent a fully supportive reply from Gordon Brown to our request for such an inquiry, for which we are still waiting, we shall have to see what Gareth Peirce and the UK justice system can do for us.
I must congratulate 'Rolfe' and Patrick Haseldine on the interesting set of comments re Pik Botha, Carlsson and Pan Am 103. At the same time I hope they will forgive me for pointing out that to us the relatives, this all falls into the category of 'speculation'.
That is so due to the flat refusal of successive UK governments despite our lobbying of every single Prime Minister since 1988 to allow any meaningful inquiry into the events leading up to the disaster. Had they fulfilled their legal obligation to provide such an inquiry, then hopefully much of this speculation would have reached at least the level of confidence given to those aspects of the disaster which were the subject of the Zeist court and inquiries.
Personally I entered the Zeist courtroom expecting to see the murderers of my daughter condemned and punished. The effect was the opposite, the evidence and the way in which it was derived and used, convinced me that neither Megrahi nor Fhimah were guilty as charged. But I was left with some relatively reliable information, compared with that derived from the best efforts of those people, may of them so well meaning, who previously had had no access whatever to any means of penetrating the official wall of silence, being obliged to speculate as a result of their (and our) exclusion.
As 'Rolfe' says, if it is true that Botha's party had reached London early, enabling the embassy 'on the spur of the moment' to book them on the earlier PA101, I see nothing suspicious in that, but as 'Rolfe' points out, if it is true that they were rebooked onto PA101 at the last minute, 'but some of their retinue could not get seats on that flight and thereupon returned to South Africa' that would be very, very interesting.
The logical speculation from that point would be that they must have known that PA103 was unsafe, for PA103 was only 2/3 full that night. 'Rolfe''s conclusion that such a development would constitute support for knowledge of a much more specific warning than those provided in the 'Helsinki' warning and other warnings already known to have been received would be valid. Patrick correctly confirms that not a single member of the Botha team was on PA103.
Why was PA103 only 2/3 full just before Christmas?
Is 'Rolfe' able to provide chapter and verse for his comment that 'instead of taking up their existing bookings on PA103 [they] just turned round and went home'?
The Zeist court had little to say about any regime's involvement, nor about those who might have been involved in the run up to the massacre itself. The nearest it came to that, for me, was the detailed account provided by the Germans of the PFLP-GC's technology, and of their known workshop on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria's capital city. They were making IEDs which however long they had lain about in an airport before being put aboard an aircraft, were still obligated to explode around 40 minutes following take off, without anyone in the relevant airport having to touch them, or even to open any container which they might be hidden in. An irrefutable fact is that my daughter's death occurred 38 minutes after her plane had left the Heathrow tarmac, just as would have been inevitable had one of these IEDs been used.
The court did not in my view exclude the use of this technology, far from it, it believed the prosecution's speculation - for that was all it was - that Megrahi (whose identification as 'the clothes buyer' was blatantly inadequate) had somehow while passing through Luqa airport penetrated security there (not supported by any evidence), to enable a profoundly unwise route of attack through 2 changes of aircraft, using a digital timer perfectly capable of being set to explode over mid-Atlantic.
Their Lordships were however operating under a severe Handicap, due to the suppression of vitally significant evidence (see below under DC Crawford).
Possible motivation was covered in terms of the past experiences of both Libya and Iran, at the hands of US military forces, but motivation for the assassination of Botha, Carlsson or the US McKee intelligence team was not established. The court's (the defence's actually) interest in Syria was snubbed by that country, leading to the inexplicable abandonment of their 'defence of incrimination' by the Megrahi defence team.
Since Megrahi's second appeal was stopped, his defence team have started to put some very interesting material on the web at
It is not clear to me whether Bell passed this on to the Crown Office, nor what his response was to the US agent suggesting it.
The astoundingly amateurish attitude attributed to DC Crawford, as to the significance of Carlsson in all this supports my worst fears as to the competence of the police force involved to cope with so great a disaster and investigation. If DC Crawford or his force really was prepared to write off the possible significance of Carlsson on the hearsay evidence of a single librarian, that says a great deal about the confidence we should have in other aspects of the investigation. The agreement to this decision by Stuart Henderson does little to reassure either, for Henderson has publicly claimed in front of a crowd of US relatives that he 'would like to wring the neck of anyone who disagreed with the police findings.' Do not these sound rather like the words of someone trying to defend something he knows to be indefensible?
Nowhere are doubts about the calibre of the investigating police more worrying than in the case of the Heathrow break-in. That occurred in the very early morning of 21/12/88 through the appropriate sector of Heathrow security to give access to where the PanAm containers were being loaded that evening. It was known to Heathrow through the night security file records on the morning of 21/12/88, and to the Met's special branch, who interviewed Manley, the night security guard in January 1989.
Yet the information about this break-in 'disappeared' for 12 years, till after the Zeist court had convicted Megrahi.
I wrote to the Crown Office to ask them if they had known about the break-in during these 12 years, and they denied knowing. They then made the disingenuous comment that the break-in didn't matter because the first appeal did know but did not overturn the verdict.
Think about their Lordships in the trial who said that the absence of evidence as to how Megrahi penetrated security at Luqa was 'a difficulty for the Crown', and compare that with what they were denied knowing - a fully documented break-in appropriate in time and position to the spot from which the fatal aircraft was actually loaded with its cargo. It seems pretty obvious to me that had they known they would have had to have found Megrahi not guilty, since Heathrow was strongly supported by evidence, whereas Luqa was not.
But glossing over the Crown's outrageous misrepresentation of the likely effect of the missing evidence upon the court's verdict, and assuming that they really didn't know during those 12 years, then it looks most likely that since the Met would surely have told the investigating Scots about it, the Scottish police probably failed to pass it on to the Crown Office.
What would be their motive for that? Well again we speculate, but the Heathrow evidence was desperately dangerous to the hypothesis that the device had come from Malta, simply because the clothing had. The annals of police investigations are full of instances where the driving hypothesis has destroyed the objectivity of the investigating force, and caused a tunnel vision where only matters that fit that hypothesis are considered.
Owing to the refusal to launch a properly empowered inquiry, it has been impossible thus far to probe the work of the Dumfries and Galloway police, nor indeed the Thatcher government's decision to put them in charge rather than the more experienced teams available in London.
In speculating about how much was known beforehand about the impending disaster, and by whom, we are discussing the worst fear that we have about this cruel business, the real possibility that our families were allowed to march on board an aircraft known by some of those who should have protected it to be doomed. To resolve that issue really would be a huge help in advancing our recovery from the loss of those we loved. Even if it turned out to be true, we would rather know the truth than be left any longer in such doubt, through the absence of a properly endowed inquiry.
Lest there be any doubt about it by the way our Fatal Accident Inquiry, though also denied knowledge of the Heathrow break-in, concluded that the disaster was preventable and that the aircraft was under the 'Host State Protection of the United Kingdom'.
I am a signatory to the appeal put out by JFM (Justice for Megrahi) to the UN for a UN based inquiry. The silence from them thus far is as dense as that from Whitehall has been for 21 years. The issues about which we speculate here appear more appropriate for a UN inquiry than simply a UK one, but the latter at least is obligatory under UK law.
Fortunately current ECHR legislation in this country entitles us as next of kin of the dead, to a suitably empowered inquiry.
Absent a fully supportive reply from Gordon Brown to our request for such an inquiry, for which we are still waiting, we shall have to see what Gareth Peirce and the UK justice system can do for us.
Sunday, 6 December 2009
Lockerbie doubters branded ‘Holocaust deniers’
[This is the headline over a report in today's Scottish edition of The Sunday Times. It reads as follows:]
A representative of families of American victims of the Lockerbie disaster has likened those questioning the guilt of the convicted Libyan bomber to “Holocaust deniers”.
Frank Duggan, an official spokesman for Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, described those who believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is innocent as a “shameless band of conspiracy mavens”.
Those criticised include Christine Grahame, the nationalist MSP, her researcher Mark Hirst, Robert Black, the Edinburgh-based legal expert who helped broker Megrahi’s trial in the Netherlands and Gareth Peirce, the London-based human rights lawyer.
In an email sent to Richard Marquise, a former FBI official who headed the investigation, Duggan said Grahame, Hirst, Black and Peirce were “no worse than Holocaust deniers who will not accept the facts before their faces”.
Grahame, who believes that Iran, not Libya, was behind the 1988 bombing, which claimed 270 lives, said Duggan’s comments were ludicrous. “My father and the fathers and grandfathers of many of the other people who are seeking the truth about who attacked Pan Am 103 were fighting the perpetrators of the Holocaust for three years before the US saw fit to get involved,” she said.
Hirst accused Duggan of a “highly personal” smear campaign against those who doubted the safety of Megrahi’s conviction.
The row reflects anger among the families of the American victims at the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, has outlived his three-month prognosis. Last week, MacAskill defended his decision to a Holyrood inquiry into the handling of Megrahi’s release, insisting that the medical advice was “quite clear”.
US intelligence files published last week claim Megrahi was involved in buying and developing chemical weapons for Libya.
Black declined to comment and Peirce was unavailable for comment.
[I declined to comment since I was unwilling to descend into the gutter with Mr Duggan.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, on six grounds, found that Mr Megrahi's conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, no better than Holocaust deniers, forsooth!
According to The Chambers Dictionary "maven" or "mavin" is US slang, from Yiddish, for pundit or expert.
The full e-mail exchange between Mr Duggan, Richard Marquise and Mr Hirst can be read here.
An interesting commentary (in German) on The Sunday Times article can be found on the Austrian Wings website. A more general article on the Lockerbie affair on the same website by Editor in Chief Patrick Radosta can be read here.]
A representative of families of American victims of the Lockerbie disaster has likened those questioning the guilt of the convicted Libyan bomber to “Holocaust deniers”.
Frank Duggan, an official spokesman for Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, described those who believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is innocent as a “shameless band of conspiracy mavens”.
Those criticised include Christine Grahame, the nationalist MSP, her researcher Mark Hirst, Robert Black, the Edinburgh-based legal expert who helped broker Megrahi’s trial in the Netherlands and Gareth Peirce, the London-based human rights lawyer.
In an email sent to Richard Marquise, a former FBI official who headed the investigation, Duggan said Grahame, Hirst, Black and Peirce were “no worse than Holocaust deniers who will not accept the facts before their faces”.
Grahame, who believes that Iran, not Libya, was behind the 1988 bombing, which claimed 270 lives, said Duggan’s comments were ludicrous. “My father and the fathers and grandfathers of many of the other people who are seeking the truth about who attacked Pan Am 103 were fighting the perpetrators of the Holocaust for three years before the US saw fit to get involved,” she said.
Hirst accused Duggan of a “highly personal” smear campaign against those who doubted the safety of Megrahi’s conviction.
The row reflects anger among the families of the American victims at the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the justice minister, to free Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, has outlived his three-month prognosis. Last week, MacAskill defended his decision to a Holyrood inquiry into the handling of Megrahi’s release, insisting that the medical advice was “quite clear”.
US intelligence files published last week claim Megrahi was involved in buying and developing chemical weapons for Libya.
Black declined to comment and Peirce was unavailable for comment.
[I declined to comment since I was unwilling to descend into the gutter with Mr Duggan.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which, on six grounds, found that Mr Megrahi's conviction may have amounted to a miscarriage of justice, no better than Holocaust deniers, forsooth!
According to The Chambers Dictionary "maven" or "mavin" is US slang, from Yiddish, for pundit or expert.
The full e-mail exchange between Mr Duggan, Richard Marquise and Mr Hirst can be read here.
An interesting commentary (in German) on The Sunday Times article can be found on the Austrian Wings website. A more general article on the Lockerbie affair on the same website by Editor in Chief Patrick Radosta can be read here.]
Friday, 4 December 2009
From Prime Minister's Questions on 2 December 2009
Q2. [303209] Mr Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): Recently revealed figures show that, since 2001, 140 inmates have been allowed to die of cancer while serving their sentences in UK jails. In the light of the Business Secretary's recent country sports activity, is there, under this Government, one rule for British inmates and another one for Libyan mass murderers?
The Prime Minister: As the hon Gentleman knows, the decision on Libya was made by the Scottish Administration. It was their decision to make; it was not our decision to make.
[The above question and answer are taken from House of Commons Hansard for 2 December 2009. The Business Secretary is Lord Mandelson who was recently reported to have attended a country house shooting party at which one of the other guests was Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi.]
The Prime Minister: As the hon Gentleman knows, the decision on Libya was made by the Scottish Administration. It was their decision to make; it was not our decision to make.
[The above question and answer are taken from House of Commons Hansard for 2 December 2009. The Business Secretary is Lord Mandelson who was recently reported to have attended a country house shooting party at which one of the other guests was Saif-al-Islam Gaddafi.]
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Labour MSP criticised for not declaring he is brother of Lockerbie lawyer
[This is the headline over a report on the heraldscotland website. It reads in part:]
An MSP has been criticised for not declaring that he is related to the Lockerbie bomber's lawyer.
Labour's James Kelly is Tony Kelly's brother and sits on the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish Government's handling of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's release from jail.
He was among those on the committee to question Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill as the inquiry got under way today.
The Glasgow Rutherglen MSP joined the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee on November 10 and told the convener he had no declarations of interest.
Mr Kelly insisted today the SNP criticism was "frankly ludicrous" and that his relationship was "well known".
But SNP committee member Stewart Maxwell said: "In the interests of transparency I am surprised that Mr Kelly did not see fit to declare his personal relationship to Mr Megrahi's lawyer.
"In a case which has caused such controversy, for any cloud to hang over today's hearing is deeply unfortunate.
"There is so far no suggestion that anything Mr Kelly asked was inappropriate, but without this potential conflict on the record, members and the public are unable to judge." (...)
Mr Kelly said: "The fact that Tony Kelly is my brother is well known and has been for years. It has certainly been reported in national newspapers.
"The fact is, myself and my brother have differing views and the idea that there was any conflict of interest is frankly ridiculous."
[Just how ridiculous the conflict of interest claim is, can be seen from Mr James Kelly's voting record on 2 September 2009 on the motions and amendments following the Scottish Parliament debate on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. In each one of these votes Mr Kelly supported the Labour Party's criticism of Kenny MacAskill for repatriating his brother's client.]
An MSP has been criticised for not declaring that he is related to the Lockerbie bomber's lawyer.
Labour's James Kelly is Tony Kelly's brother and sits on the Holyrood committee investigating the Scottish Government's handling of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's release from jail.
He was among those on the committee to question Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill as the inquiry got under way today.
The Glasgow Rutherglen MSP joined the Scottish Parliament's Justice Committee on November 10 and told the convener he had no declarations of interest.
Mr Kelly insisted today the SNP criticism was "frankly ludicrous" and that his relationship was "well known".
But SNP committee member Stewart Maxwell said: "In the interests of transparency I am surprised that Mr Kelly did not see fit to declare his personal relationship to Mr Megrahi's lawyer.
"In a case which has caused such controversy, for any cloud to hang over today's hearing is deeply unfortunate.
"There is so far no suggestion that anything Mr Kelly asked was inappropriate, but without this potential conflict on the record, members and the public are unable to judge." (...)
Mr Kelly said: "The fact that Tony Kelly is my brother is well known and has been for years. It has certainly been reported in national newspapers.
"The fact is, myself and my brother have differing views and the idea that there was any conflict of interest is frankly ridiculous."
[Just how ridiculous the conflict of interest claim is, can be seen from Mr James Kelly's voting record on 2 September 2009 on the motions and amendments following the Scottish Parliament debate on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. In each one of these votes Mr Kelly supported the Labour Party's criticism of Kenny MacAskill for repatriating his brother's client.]
Justice Committee takes evidence from MacAskill and officials
[What follows is the agenda paper relating to today's hearing by the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee into the process that led to the repatriation of Abdelbaset Megrahi.]
Justice Committee
33rd Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 1 December 2009
Inquiry into decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
The purpose of today's item is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and officials [Robert Gordon and George Burgess] on the decision on Mr al-Megrahi on any issue falling within the remit that the Committee agreed for the inquiry (attached). At next week's meeting, there will be an opportunity for the Committee to decide whether it is now satisfied on the basis of the evidence heard, or whether it wishes to continue the inquiry. At that stage, the Committee will also have the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to report to the Parliament.
Remit
The Justice Committee has agreed to undertake a short inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of:
• the application by Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for compassionate release under section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; and
• the application by the Libyan Government for the transfer of Mr al-Megrahi under the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement.
The inquiry will focus on the process followed by the Scottish Government in considering these applications and announcing the Cabinet Secretary’s decision. It will not consider the question of whether the Cabinet Secretary was right to conclude that compassionate release was justified in the circumstances.
Within this remit, the Committee may wish to consider:
• the timescale for consideration of the applications, and the advice and representations taken into account
• the form and timing of the announcement of the Cabinet Secretary’s decision
• the timing of Mr al-Megrahi’s release from prison and return to Libya, and the steps taken by the Scottish Government to ensure that his reception there was appropriate
• the conditions attached to the licence on which Mr al-Megrahi was released.
Among the issues excluded by the inquiry remit are, in particular:
• the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988
• the trial and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for murder, his subsequent appeals against conviction, or the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to his case
• the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement, or the content of that agreement.
The Committee intends to conduct the inquiry, in the first instance, by assessing the available documentation (which may include information that has not so far been published) and then taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, relevant officials and others who contributed to the advice on which his decision was based. At that point, which it expects to reach by the end of 2009, the Committee will consider whether it is satisfied, or whether to extend the inquiry further. It will also decide at that point whether to report its conclusions to the Parliament.
Given this approach, the Committee is not at this stage issuing a general call for evidence.
[The following are excerpts from the report on the STV News website of Mr MacAskill's evidence.]
The Justice Secretary has told a Holyrood Committee that medical advice given prior to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was "quite clear".
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was freed in August on compassionate grounds on the expectation that he had three months to live, however, that period expired last month. (...)
Convenor Bill Aitken questioned Mr MacAskill about the time prediction, saying: "We're beyond that now. What we need is supporting evidence that, in all circumstances, it was appropriate to assume that this three-month prognosis was accurate."
The Justice Secretary said he acted on the basis of a medical report provided to him by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Scottish Prison Service's Director of health and social care.
He said: "In the report it was quite clear, and this is not an exact science, but the prognosis was that Mr Al Megrahi fell within the three-month timescale.
"Thereafter it was concluded that he did qualify for the terms of compassionate release." (...)
Mr Aitken said it was not clear if an "unanimity of view" existed among all the doctors who treated Megrahi.
He asked: "Was there a firm consensus that this three-month prognosis was accurate?"
But Mr MacAskill insisted Dr Fraser's report was clear about the "deterioration" of Megrahi's condition and said a three-month prognosis was accurate.
The Justice Secretary added: "That was his advice and that was the advice I took."
[The full Hansard report of the committee session can be read here.]
Justice Committee
33rd Meeting, 2009 (Session 3), Tuesday 1 December 2009
Inquiry into decision on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
The purpose of today's item is to take evidence from the Cabinet Secretary and officials [Robert Gordon and George Burgess] on the decision on Mr al-Megrahi on any issue falling within the remit that the Committee agreed for the inquiry (attached). At next week's meeting, there will be an opportunity for the Committee to decide whether it is now satisfied on the basis of the evidence heard, or whether it wishes to continue the inquiry. At that stage, the Committee will also have the opportunity to decide whether it wishes to report to the Parliament.
Remit
The Justice Committee has agreed to undertake a short inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of:
• the application by Mr Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for compassionate release under section 3 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993; and
• the application by the Libyan Government for the transfer of Mr al-Megrahi under the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement.
The inquiry will focus on the process followed by the Scottish Government in considering these applications and announcing the Cabinet Secretary’s decision. It will not consider the question of whether the Cabinet Secretary was right to conclude that compassionate release was justified in the circumstances.
Within this remit, the Committee may wish to consider:
• the timescale for consideration of the applications, and the advice and representations taken into account
• the form and timing of the announcement of the Cabinet Secretary’s decision
• the timing of Mr al-Megrahi’s release from prison and return to Libya, and the steps taken by the Scottish Government to ensure that his reception there was appropriate
• the conditions attached to the licence on which Mr al-Megrahi was released.
Among the issues excluded by the inquiry remit are, in particular:
• the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988
• the trial and conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for murder, his subsequent appeals against conviction, or the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in relation to his case
• the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the UK-Libya prisoner transfer agreement, or the content of that agreement.
The Committee intends to conduct the inquiry, in the first instance, by assessing the available documentation (which may include information that has not so far been published) and then taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, relevant officials and others who contributed to the advice on which his decision was based. At that point, which it expects to reach by the end of 2009, the Committee will consider whether it is satisfied, or whether to extend the inquiry further. It will also decide at that point whether to report its conclusions to the Parliament.
Given this approach, the Committee is not at this stage issuing a general call for evidence.
[The following are excerpts from the report on the STV News website of Mr MacAskill's evidence.]
The Justice Secretary has told a Holyrood Committee that medical advice given prior to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was "quite clear".
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was freed in August on compassionate grounds on the expectation that he had three months to live, however, that period expired last month. (...)
Convenor Bill Aitken questioned Mr MacAskill about the time prediction, saying: "We're beyond that now. What we need is supporting evidence that, in all circumstances, it was appropriate to assume that this three-month prognosis was accurate."
The Justice Secretary said he acted on the basis of a medical report provided to him by Dr Andrew Fraser, the Scottish Prison Service's Director of health and social care.
He said: "In the report it was quite clear, and this is not an exact science, but the prognosis was that Mr Al Megrahi fell within the three-month timescale.
"Thereafter it was concluded that he did qualify for the terms of compassionate release." (...)
Mr Aitken said it was not clear if an "unanimity of view" existed among all the doctors who treated Megrahi.
He asked: "Was there a firm consensus that this three-month prognosis was accurate?"
But Mr MacAskill insisted Dr Fraser's report was clear about the "deterioration" of Megrahi's condition and said a three-month prognosis was accurate.
The Justice Secretary added: "That was his advice and that was the advice I took."
[The full Hansard report of the committee session can be read here.]
Lockerbie relative's doubts over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
Fears have been raised that Kenny MacAskill unduly influenced the course of criminal proceedings by delaying key decisions over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
As Mr MacAskill faces MSPs today to answer questions about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a Lockerbie relative said it was "unclear" whether the justice secretary acted responsibly.
In a submission to Holyrood's justice committee, Matt Berkley, who lost his brother in the bombing, highlighted delays he says put pressure on the bomber to drop his appeal.
These include a 43-day wait to contact the relatives after the transfer application was made and a three-week wait to respond to Megrahi's acceptance of Mr MacAskill's invitation for a meeting.
Mr Berkley also said it was not clear the Scottish Government had "provided accurate, fair and balanced information to the prisoner". He said Mr MacAskill appeared not to have told Megrahi the range of options he had in relation to the dropping of his appeal.
"Did the justice secretary take adequate care, through promptness of action and appropriate information to the appellant, to avoid influencing the court process?" asked Mr Berkley in his submission.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Megrahi and his legal team chose to abandon their appeal … their decision bore no relation to the release."
[This comment is somewhat disingenuous. Mr Megrahi and his legal team did not know whether repatriation would be granted (if at all) under prisoner transfer or compassionate release. To keep the first possibility open, the appeal had to be abandoned. How, therefore, can it seriously be said that their decision bore no relation to the release?]
Fears have been raised that Kenny MacAskill unduly influenced the course of criminal proceedings by delaying key decisions over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
As Mr MacAskill faces MSPs today to answer questions about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, a Lockerbie relative said it was "unclear" whether the justice secretary acted responsibly.
In a submission to Holyrood's justice committee, Matt Berkley, who lost his brother in the bombing, highlighted delays he says put pressure on the bomber to drop his appeal.
These include a 43-day wait to contact the relatives after the transfer application was made and a three-week wait to respond to Megrahi's acceptance of Mr MacAskill's invitation for a meeting.
Mr Berkley also said it was not clear the Scottish Government had "provided accurate, fair and balanced information to the prisoner". He said Mr MacAskill appeared not to have told Megrahi the range of options he had in relation to the dropping of his appeal.
"Did the justice secretary take adequate care, through promptness of action and appropriate information to the appellant, to avoid influencing the court process?" asked Mr Berkley in his submission.
A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "Megrahi and his legal team chose to abandon their appeal … their decision bore no relation to the release."
[This comment is somewhat disingenuous. Mr Megrahi and his legal team did not know whether repatriation would be granted (if at all) under prisoner transfer or compassionate release. To keep the first possibility open, the appeal had to be abandoned. How, therefore, can it seriously be said that their decision bore no relation to the release?]
Monday, 30 November 2009
The Lockerbie bombing: facts, deception and misinformation
This is the heading over a long post on the Garry Crystal blog. It can be read here.
Sunday, 29 November 2009
British MPs, activist say Malta should defend itself on Lockerbie case
[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
Two former British Labour and Conservative MPs have joined American political activist Noam Chomsky in calling on the Maltese government to defend the country's reputation.
Prof Chomsky and the British MPs are signatories to a letter sent to the government calling on Malta to support a demand for an inquiry by the UN General Assembly into the 1988 Pan Am bombing that claimed 270 lives.
The letter sent by the 'Justice for Megrahi' campaign, which includes relatives of the victims in the bombing, is also signed by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for 43 years, and Teddy Taylor, MP for the Conservatives for 36 years, said they had doubts about the original verdict. They said if the Maltese government supported a UN inquiry, then it could clear the country's name and help the families of the victims establish the truth.
Prof Chomsky described the events surrounding the case of the convicted bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi as "a remarkable illustration of the conformism and obedience of intellectual opinion in the West".
He told The Sunday Times: "I think the trial was very seriously flawed, including crucially the alleged role of Malta. There is every reason to call for a very serious independent inquiry." (...)
The original conviction of Mr Al Megrahi had relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who said the Libyan had bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
But it has since emerged that Al Megrahi's defence team had argued in the recent appeal that the Maltese witness was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
The former British Conservative MP referred to Mr Gauci's testimony when speaking to The Sunday Times. He said if "our friends in Malta" were willing to pursue the issue at the UN and seek the truth that may have been flawed by "a statement of a resident of Malta who appears to have benefited enormously from his identification and who then moved to Australia", then the government would help relatives of the victims, and itself.
Mr Taylor recalled Malta's role in the Second World War, saying "British people my age have a very special regard for Malta as a centre of brave and trustworthy people who were willing to stand firm against fascism".
Mr Dalyell said: "I have believed since 1991 that the Crown Office in Edinburgh should have respected the stated view of the Maltese government, Air Malta, Luqa airport authorities and the Malta police that no unaccounted for luggage, let alone a bomb, was placed on the flight."
Although Malta has always denied any involvement in the act, it remains implicated by the government's refusal to take up the cause.
When Mr Gauci said in the original trial that he believed Mr Al Megrahi purchased clothes from his shop, it provided the prosecution with grounds to argue that the bomb had left from Malta and then transferred to the fateful flight.
Malta had provided ample evidence to support its contention that there was no unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. But Malta's defence was trumped by Mr Gauci's testimony.
Two former British Labour and Conservative MPs have joined American political activist Noam Chomsky in calling on the Maltese government to defend the country's reputation.
Prof Chomsky and the British MPs are signatories to a letter sent to the government calling on Malta to support a demand for an inquiry by the UN General Assembly into the 1988 Pan Am bombing that claimed 270 lives.
The letter sent by the 'Justice for Megrahi' campaign, which includes relatives of the victims in the bombing, is also signed by South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for 43 years, and Teddy Taylor, MP for the Conservatives for 36 years, said they had doubts about the original verdict. They said if the Maltese government supported a UN inquiry, then it could clear the country's name and help the families of the victims establish the truth.
Prof Chomsky described the events surrounding the case of the convicted bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi as "a remarkable illustration of the conformism and obedience of intellectual opinion in the West".
He told The Sunday Times: "I think the trial was very seriously flawed, including crucially the alleged role of Malta. There is every reason to call for a very serious independent inquiry." (...)
The original conviction of Mr Al Megrahi had relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who said the Libyan had bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
But it has since emerged that Al Megrahi's defence team had argued in the recent appeal that the Maltese witness was paid "in excess of $2 million", while his brother Paul Gauci was paid "in excess of $1 million" for their co-operation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.
The former British Conservative MP referred to Mr Gauci's testimony when speaking to The Sunday Times. He said if "our friends in Malta" were willing to pursue the issue at the UN and seek the truth that may have been flawed by "a statement of a resident of Malta who appears to have benefited enormously from his identification and who then moved to Australia", then the government would help relatives of the victims, and itself.
Mr Taylor recalled Malta's role in the Second World War, saying "British people my age have a very special regard for Malta as a centre of brave and trustworthy people who were willing to stand firm against fascism".
Mr Dalyell said: "I have believed since 1991 that the Crown Office in Edinburgh should have respected the stated view of the Maltese government, Air Malta, Luqa airport authorities and the Malta police that no unaccounted for luggage, let alone a bomb, was placed on the flight."
Although Malta has always denied any involvement in the act, it remains implicated by the government's refusal to take up the cause.
When Mr Gauci said in the original trial that he believed Mr Al Megrahi purchased clothes from his shop, it provided the prosecution with grounds to argue that the bomb had left from Malta and then transferred to the fateful flight.
Malta had provided ample evidence to support its contention that there was no unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. But Malta's defence was trumped by Mr Gauci's testimony.
Saturday, 28 November 2009
Seventeen year old press release treated as news by Sunday Times
[What follows are excerpts from a report in The Sunday Times. The document in question is a US State Department press release dating from April 1992 which appeared on the State Department website for many years and is well known to all who have taken the trouble to follow the Lockerbie case. What motivated the newspaper to draw it again to our attention in November 2009 is a mystery.]
The Lockerbie bomber was implicated in the purchase and development of chemical weapons by Libya, according to documents produced by the American government.
The papers also claim that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi sought to sponsor Latin American terrorist groups and to buy 1,000 letter bombs from Greek arms dealers while working as a Libyan intelligence officer. The documents, which were prepared by the US State Department, reveal the extent of Megrahi’s alleged terrorist activities. (...)
In 1987, Megrahi was appointed director of Libya’s Centre for Strategic Studies (CSS), which served the Department of Military Procurement. In a section headed “Procurement of chemical weapons precursors”, the documents state: “An al-Megrahi subordinate operating in Germany in 1988 played an important role in acquiring and shipping chemical weapons precursors to Libya. Megrahi is also linked to a senior manager of Libya’s chemical weapons development program.” (...)
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said the documents made a mockery of Britain’s ongoing trade links with Libya and the decision to release Megrahi. (...)
Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer in Scotland, said he was unaware of the existence of the State Department documents but was sure they were based on “unsubstantiated and unattributed intelligence rumours”.
“If there was any evidence backing any of this up I am absolutely certain it would have been introduced at trial, and it wasn’t,” he said.
The Lockerbie bomber was implicated in the purchase and development of chemical weapons by Libya, according to documents produced by the American government.
The papers also claim that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi sought to sponsor Latin American terrorist groups and to buy 1,000 letter bombs from Greek arms dealers while working as a Libyan intelligence officer. The documents, which were prepared by the US State Department, reveal the extent of Megrahi’s alleged terrorist activities. (...)
In 1987, Megrahi was appointed director of Libya’s Centre for Strategic Studies (CSS), which served the Department of Military Procurement. In a section headed “Procurement of chemical weapons precursors”, the documents state: “An al-Megrahi subordinate operating in Germany in 1988 played an important role in acquiring and shipping chemical weapons precursors to Libya. Megrahi is also linked to a senior manager of Libya’s chemical weapons development program.” (...)
Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, said the documents made a mockery of Britain’s ongoing trade links with Libya and the decision to release Megrahi. (...)
Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s lawyer in Scotland, said he was unaware of the existence of the State Department documents but was sure they were based on “unsubstantiated and unattributed intelligence rumours”.
“If there was any evidence backing any of this up I am absolutely certain it would have been introduced at trial, and it wasn’t,” he said.
Pan Am 103: what really happened?
This is the headline over a three-part article by Scottish freelance journalist Stewart Nicol published today on the News With Views website. Part One can be read here, Part Two here and Part Three here.
The article contains a lot of interesting material, some of it not well known. However, it appears to have been written before Abdelbaset Megrahi abandoned his appeal and was returned to Libya and the Crown abandoned its appeal against the "punishment part" of his life sentence, since Part Three contains the following paragraph:
"So those who may have been behind the largest loss of life attack in Europe were certainly not Abdel Baset Al Megrahi of Libya. He became a scapegoat years later and one of the biggest victims as he spent over a decade in jail, his name ever linked with the atrocity. He sought to clear his name but due to a terminal illness and the unreal delaying tactics of the Crown Office under orders of the USA lawyers like [Brian] Murtagh and Dana Biehl the court only got started on the appeal. However five judges still have to rule on that section of the appeal and the Crown Office still have to drop their appeal of a stiffer sentence. That first phase of the appeal could exonerate Megrahi on the identification alone."
A supportive report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
The article contains a lot of interesting material, some of it not well known. However, it appears to have been written before Abdelbaset Megrahi abandoned his appeal and was returned to Libya and the Crown abandoned its appeal against the "punishment part" of his life sentence, since Part Three contains the following paragraph:
"So those who may have been behind the largest loss of life attack in Europe were certainly not Abdel Baset Al Megrahi of Libya. He became a scapegoat years later and one of the biggest victims as he spent over a decade in jail, his name ever linked with the atrocity. He sought to clear his name but due to a terminal illness and the unreal delaying tactics of the Crown Office under orders of the USA lawyers like [Brian] Murtagh and Dana Biehl the court only got started on the appeal. However five judges still have to rule on that section of the appeal and the Crown Office still have to drop their appeal of a stiffer sentence. That first phase of the appeal could exonerate Megrahi on the identification alone."
A supportive report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Life to mean life for worst killers
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. The following are excerpts.]
Killers could have to spend the rest of their lives behind bars after a landmark ruling by appeal court judges that increased prison terms for murder in Scotland.
Five judges ruled the current 12- year minimum sentence often imposed in murder cases was generally too lenient, while the top level of 30 years was too low.
The decision effectively paves the way for "life to mean life" in the worst murder cases. (...)
Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini was the architect of the changes. (...)
Lord [Justice General] Hamilton, sitting with Lords Reed, Clarke and Mackay and Lady Dorrian, agreed to all the Lord Advocate's requests.
Anyone convicted of murder receives a mandatory life sentence. Judges also have to impose a "punishment part" of the sentence – the period that must be served before an application for parole can be made.
In a 2002 judgment, the appeal court, then headed by Lord Cullen, reduced from 30 to 27 years the punishment part imposed on former Royal Scots corporal Andrew Walker, who shot dead three people in an army payroll robbery.
Following that ruling, judges began to apply a 30-year ceiling and used 12 years as the "norm" in murder cases, going up or down depending on the aggravating or mitigating features of an individual case.
It had been expected that 30 years would be reserved for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, but he was given 27 years. The judges in his case used 30 years as a maximum but reduced it because of Megrahi's age, then 51, and because he would, as they understood it, be serving his sentence in a foreign country in solitary confinement. In yesterday's judgment, Lord Hamilton said the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act prescribed no minimum or maximum punishment part, merely that it be a specified period, and it could be a period that exceeded the prisoner's likely lifespan.
He said the Walker judgment had not stated in terms that 30 years would be the maximum, but had been interpreted as such.
"In our view, there may well be cases, for example mass murders by terrorist action, for which a punishment part of more than 30 years may, subject to any mitigatory considerations, be appropriate. In so far as Walker and al-Megrahi may suggest that 30 years is a virtual maximum punishment part, that suggestion is disapproved," Lord Hamilton said.
Killers could have to spend the rest of their lives behind bars after a landmark ruling by appeal court judges that increased prison terms for murder in Scotland.
Five judges ruled the current 12- year minimum sentence often imposed in murder cases was generally too lenient, while the top level of 30 years was too low.
The decision effectively paves the way for "life to mean life" in the worst murder cases. (...)
Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini was the architect of the changes. (...)
Lord [Justice General] Hamilton, sitting with Lords Reed, Clarke and Mackay and Lady Dorrian, agreed to all the Lord Advocate's requests.
Anyone convicted of murder receives a mandatory life sentence. Judges also have to impose a "punishment part" of the sentence – the period that must be served before an application for parole can be made.
In a 2002 judgment, the appeal court, then headed by Lord Cullen, reduced from 30 to 27 years the punishment part imposed on former Royal Scots corporal Andrew Walker, who shot dead three people in an army payroll robbery.
Following that ruling, judges began to apply a 30-year ceiling and used 12 years as the "norm" in murder cases, going up or down depending on the aggravating or mitigating features of an individual case.
It had been expected that 30 years would be reserved for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, but he was given 27 years. The judges in his case used 30 years as a maximum but reduced it because of Megrahi's age, then 51, and because he would, as they understood it, be serving his sentence in a foreign country in solitary confinement. In yesterday's judgment, Lord Hamilton said the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act prescribed no minimum or maximum punishment part, merely that it be a specified period, and it could be a period that exceeded the prisoner's likely lifespan.
He said the Walker judgment had not stated in terms that 30 years would be the maximum, but had been interpreted as such.
"In our view, there may well be cases, for example mass murders by terrorist action, for which a punishment part of more than 30 years may, subject to any mitigatory considerations, be appropriate. In so far as Walker and al-Megrahi may suggest that 30 years is a virtual maximum punishment part, that suggestion is disapproved," Lord Hamilton said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)