[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]
US senators will this week bypass the UK and Scottish governments to issue a public call for "whistleblowers" to come forward with fresh evidence about the Lockerbie case, a year on from the controversial release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
Scottish lawyers and doctors with knowledge of Megrahi's case are among those being urged to step forward by the team of four US senators conducting an inquiry into the release of the convicted bomber.
The team is also calling on insiders with knowledge of the UK Government's trade links to Libya - including arms deals with the Gaddafi regime - to reveal any evidence they were linked to Megrahi's return home.
The move was last night interpreted as another example of US interference in the decisions made by the Scottish Government, which allowed the 58-year-old Libyan intelligence officer to return home last summer after ministers received reports saying he had just three months to live.
One SNP source said: "This is all just about their own politics. They have their elections coming and they are just trying to show they're doing something."
Christine Grahame, an SNP MSP, said: "I would be much happier if, rather than doing this they [the senators] would simply call for a UN inquiry into all matters in Lockerbie, where all the evidence was laid out. That way the senators would sleep a lot better in their beds at night."
The internet appeal, to be made public later this week, comes with the bomber, who is suffering from prostate cancer, preparing to mark a year of freedom back in Libya. (...)
In further revelations today:
• SNP ministers say they would be happy to support an international inquiry into the Lockerbie case, amid fresh calls for a investigation into his conviction.
• Megrahi says he wants all papers relating to his aborted appeal to be made public and says he would have released his own documentation if the Crown Office in Scotland and police also agreed to do so.
• Senators have again asked Foreign Secretary William Hague to examine whether potentially lucrative arms deals between the UK and Libya played a factor in the UK's approach to Megrahi's case.
[The readers' comments that follow the story are well worth reading. I wonder whether the senators' whistleblowing call will be endorsed by Labour and Conservative politicians in Scotland? Given their shameful track-record on this issue, it really would not surprise me.
An editorial in Scotland on Sunday headed "A kooks' charter" contains the following:]
Scots will be bemused this week by the appeal by the four US senators conducting an inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for whistleblowers to come forward and furnish information about the case.
This is an invitation to every conspiracy theorist to air his views; it is a kooks' charter - perhaps the senators should advertise in the Fortean Times. (...)
Asking for whistleblowers to divulge the UK intelligence community's perspective on Megrahi's release sounds like an attempt to suborn British security services personnel. How would the senators like it if a British parliamentary committee asked CIA staff to reveal sensitive information?
The undertaking that the source of any information will not be disclosed unless permission is given discredits the exercise. What kind of transparency does that bring to an inquiry? We should have been spared this farcical initiative by a group of US politicians who appear to be acting disingenuously. This is not the way to proceed.
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Group wants Lockerbie case review
[This is the headline over a report on the Big On Glasgow website. It describes the letter to editors recently sent out by the Justice for Megrahi campaign and concludes with the following quotation from Dr Jim Swire:]
“Let’s stop pretending that what matters is the process running up to the release. What matters is what he is guilty of.
“As I see it, international politicians handed the job of investigation and trial to Scotland. Scotland’s most responsible body decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice. That’s what Megrahi’s appeal was starting to do.
“I don’t know why he dropped the appeal. But Scotland is leaning on the edge of a precipice. Following Megrahi’s return home, there is no vehicle being used to re-examine responsibly the evidence that lead to the conviction. I’m talking here as a relative. What we want is the truth: who murdered our families?”
[A report on the website of the Morning Star reads in part:]
A group seeking the "truth" over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber revealed on Sunday its plans to use Friday's one-year anniversary of his release to demand a fresh review of the evidence.
Campaigners who believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was unfairly convicted argued that the issues surrounding his release on compassionate grounds - he is suffering from terminal cancer - were a red herring.
Mr Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.
Campaign group Justice for Megrahi is leading calls for a public inquiry into the entire affair and has now written an open letter to scores of influential people, including US senators, British politicians and those in the media and legal system, to argue the case. (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
But Mr Megrahi effectively closed that avenue by dropping his appeal against conviction shortly before he was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds.
Justice for Megrahi now wants an inquiry into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 which killed 270 people in 1988, the police investigation, the trial at Kamp van Zeist, the conviction and the dropping of the appeal.
“Let’s stop pretending that what matters is the process running up to the release. What matters is what he is guilty of.
“As I see it, international politicians handed the job of investigation and trial to Scotland. Scotland’s most responsible body decided there may have been a miscarriage of justice. That’s what Megrahi’s appeal was starting to do.
“I don’t know why he dropped the appeal. But Scotland is leaning on the edge of a precipice. Following Megrahi’s return home, there is no vehicle being used to re-examine responsibly the evidence that lead to the conviction. I’m talking here as a relative. What we want is the truth: who murdered our families?”
[A report on the website of the Morning Star reads in part:]
A group seeking the "truth" over the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber revealed on Sunday its plans to use Friday's one-year anniversary of his release to demand a fresh review of the evidence.
Campaigners who believe Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was unfairly convicted argued that the issues surrounding his release on compassionate grounds - he is suffering from terminal cancer - were a red herring.
Mr Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer.
Campaign group Justice for Megrahi is leading calls for a public inquiry into the entire affair and has now written an open letter to scores of influential people, including US senators, British politicians and those in the media and legal system, to argue the case. (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has referred the case to the Court of Appeal.
But Mr Megrahi effectively closed that avenue by dropping his appeal against conviction shortly before he was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds.
Justice for Megrahi now wants an inquiry into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 which killed 270 people in 1988, the police investigation, the trial at Kamp van Zeist, the conviction and the dropping of the appeal.
Prison doctor who played key role in release of the Lockerbie bomber had no specialist cancer knowledge
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Dr Peter Kay, who until now has only been identified by the Scottish Government as an unnamed "primary care physician" of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's, provided a crucial medical report which led to the conclusion that the prisoner was likely to have three months, or less, to live. (...)
This newspaper can also disclose that American senators investigating Megrahi's release will this week launch an unprecedented request for British "whistle-blowers" to disclose details about the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber. The appeal is a remarkable sign of US-British rifts as it indicates that US investigators do not believe they are obtaining the full story from politicians in London and Edinburgh. (...)
Dr Kay, the prison doctor, when approached at his home in Scotland, initially denied that he was formerly the doctor at HM Prison Greenock, where Megrahi was serving his life sentence. However, he later said: "You'll be aware of the hypocratic [sic] oath [on patient confidentiality]? I just can't say anything."
The GP was a key contributor to medical evidence supplied to Dr Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service, who in turn drew up the report upon which Mr MacAskill's decision was reached.
Dr Kay trained at Glasgow University and became a qualified doctor in 1998. During his time at Greenock Prison, which ended earlier this year, he is understood to have combined his role as the part-time prison doctor with work as a local GP.
According to the General Medical Council, which contains information on all qualified doctors, he has been registered as a GP since 2006 and he is not on any specialist register. (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government refused to confirm that Dr Kay was the prison doctor involved in the assessment. However, he said: "It was Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, who concluded in his report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of unimpeachable integrity. It was his professional responsibility to provide the clinical assessment of al-Megrahi's condition, and his report, which has been published by the Scottish Government, was the only medical report submitted to the Justice Secretary – along with the reports of the Parole Board and Prison Governor, which also supported a compassionate release decision.
"Dr Fraser drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate for al-Megrahi – it was not based on the opinion of any one doctor.
"These specialists included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, and Mr al-Megrahi's primary care physician."
[A report on the website of the Agence France Presse news agency headed "Experts not consulted over Lockerbie bomber's release" contains statements from certain of the consultants to the effect that Dr Andrew Fraser's three-month assessment was made without consultation with them. They state clearly, however, that they would not have given a prognosis of the length of Mr Megrahi's survival. As I have said on numerous occasions on this blog, that is precisely why estimating the length of a patient's survival is invariably a matter for his GP, reaching the best conclusion that he can on the basis of the consultants' reports. That is exactly what Drs Fraser and Kay appear to have done in this case.
Today's edition of The Observer runs an interview with the egregious Professor Karol Sikora, headed "Al-Megrahi's doctor: 'I just provided an opinion. Someone else let him go free'". An Associated Press news agency report also has extensive quotations from him. Professor Sikora's increasingly frantic attempts to distance himself are become tiresome. The Scottish Government has already stated clearly that his opinion, and that of the other specialists engaged by Libya, played no part in Kenny MacAskill's decision.
Incidentally, I give full marks to Dr Kay for sending doorstepping Telegraph journalists away with fleas in their ear. His reference to the Hippocratic oath is entirely to the point. I wonder whether the other doctors who are talking to journalists have heard of it or (unlike Telegraph reporters and sub-editors) can spell it.
A regular commentator on this blog has made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about The Sunday Telegraph's disclosure of the identity of Dr Kay.]
Dr Peter Kay, who until now has only been identified by the Scottish Government as an unnamed "primary care physician" of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's, provided a crucial medical report which led to the conclusion that the prisoner was likely to have three months, or less, to live. (...)
This newspaper can also disclose that American senators investigating Megrahi's release will this week launch an unprecedented request for British "whistle-blowers" to disclose details about the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber. The appeal is a remarkable sign of US-British rifts as it indicates that US investigators do not believe they are obtaining the full story from politicians in London and Edinburgh. (...)
Dr Kay, the prison doctor, when approached at his home in Scotland, initially denied that he was formerly the doctor at HM Prison Greenock, where Megrahi was serving his life sentence. However, he later said: "You'll be aware of the hypocratic [sic] oath [on patient confidentiality]? I just can't say anything."
The GP was a key contributor to medical evidence supplied to Dr Andrew Fraser, the director of health and care of the Scottish Prison Service, who in turn drew up the report upon which Mr MacAskill's decision was reached.
Dr Kay trained at Glasgow University and became a qualified doctor in 1998. During his time at Greenock Prison, which ended earlier this year, he is understood to have combined his role as the part-time prison doctor with work as a local GP.
According to the General Medical Council, which contains information on all qualified doctors, he has been registered as a GP since 2006 and he is not on any specialist register. (...)
A spokesman for the Scottish Government refused to confirm that Dr Kay was the prison doctor involved in the assessment. However, he said: "It was Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, who concluded in his report to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of unimpeachable integrity. It was his professional responsibility to provide the clinical assessment of al-Megrahi's condition, and his report, which has been published by the Scottish Government, was the only medical report submitted to the Justice Secretary – along with the reports of the Parole Board and Prison Governor, which also supported a compassionate release decision.
"Dr Fraser drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate for al-Megrahi – it was not based on the opinion of any one doctor.
"These specialists included two consultant oncologists, two consultant urologists and a number of other specialists, including a palliative care team, and Mr al-Megrahi's primary care physician."
[A report on the website of the Agence France Presse news agency headed "Experts not consulted over Lockerbie bomber's release" contains statements from certain of the consultants to the effect that Dr Andrew Fraser's three-month assessment was made without consultation with them. They state clearly, however, that they would not have given a prognosis of the length of Mr Megrahi's survival. As I have said on numerous occasions on this blog, that is precisely why estimating the length of a patient's survival is invariably a matter for his GP, reaching the best conclusion that he can on the basis of the consultants' reports. That is exactly what Drs Fraser and Kay appear to have done in this case.
Today's edition of The Observer runs an interview with the egregious Professor Karol Sikora, headed "Al-Megrahi's doctor: 'I just provided an opinion. Someone else let him go free'". An Associated Press news agency report also has extensive quotations from him. Professor Sikora's increasingly frantic attempts to distance himself are become tiresome. The Scottish Government has already stated clearly that his opinion, and that of the other specialists engaged by Libya, played no part in Kenny MacAskill's decision.
Incidentally, I give full marks to Dr Kay for sending doorstepping Telegraph journalists away with fleas in their ear. His reference to the Hippocratic oath is entirely to the point. I wonder whether the other doctors who are talking to journalists have heard of it or (unlike Telegraph reporters and sub-editors) can spell it.
A regular commentator on this blog has made a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about The Sunday Telegraph's disclosure of the identity of Dr Kay.]
Saturday, 14 August 2010
Lockerbie - A demand for a full public inquiry
This is the headline over a report on the influential, must-read Newsnet Scotland website, in which the Justice for Megrahi letter to editors is reproduced.
Interview with "Lockerbie: Unfinished Business" actor-writer David Benson
Fest, the Edinburgh Festival Fringe magazine, features a long interview with David Benson. The following are excerpts:]
Flora Swire boarded a Boeing 747-100 named Clipper Maid of the Seas at London Heathrow. On 21 December 1988—the day before her 24th birthday—she was travelling to New York to spend Christmas with her American boyfriend Hart Lidov. Earlier that year she had graduated in medicine with a first-class degree and top of her class.
There was no touch-down at JFK. At 7.03pm, 30,000 feet above the Scottish town of Lockerbie, a bomb exploded on board ripping through the aircraft's fuselage. PanAm Flight 103 gradually disintegrated over two horrific minutes before impact on Sherwood Crescent creating a large crater and destroying homes. There were 270 fatalities.
Since the disaster, Flora's father Dr Jim Swire has fought to bring those responsible for the Lockerbie bombings to justice. Now he's now the focus of a play by writer and actor David Benson. (...)
“I was doing some research online on the subject of Lockerbie, idly browsing news stories, and I came across the website of Dr Jim Swire. I saw he had written a book—as yet unpublished—giving his account of what had happened, written with a co-researcher, Peter Biddulph.”
“They had a note saying to leave your email address if you'd like to know when the book is published. So I sent them an email and had a message back very quickly from Biddulph saying 'I see that you're an actor and you write one-man shows. Perhaps you'd be interested in having a look at this unpublished text and seeing if there's anything you can do with it'.”
Even though the topic was not on his agenda, Benson replied. “I would love to read it anyway so he sent me a copy of it and I was absolutely transfixed.” Fascinated by Dr Swire's traumatic journey, his campaign of enormous courage, and his anger and grief at the loss of his daughter, Benson spent months reading up on the subject and secured a rare 90-minute meeting with Swire. “He answered every question I had. Thoroughly as he always does. And I felt able to go away and write a script that would tell his story and tell things that maybe he can't tell.” (...)
When I ask Benson, now 48, if constructing his play has been emotional, he reveals it has generated anger above all else. He blames governments for “doing everything they could do block the Lockerbie relatives' path to justice. They had many reasons for not wanting the true story coming out and they very cynically produced a cover story that these Libyans were supposed to have done it. That is a horrendous, sickening insult to the grief of the people who are still seeking justice.”
Yet behind Benson's anger is deep sympathy for his subject, something he is not accustomed to finding in his work: “When I look at Dr Swire's story and realising how much he's lost, understanding the depth of his grief that I sometimes find it quite overwhelming in even speaking the lines I've written myself.
“He goes from being very formal and in control, giving out this information fact by fact about what happened, and then once in a while having to admit that his beautiful lovely daughter who he adored is dead, died in a horrible way and that he will never see her again. I think it's impossible not to be touched by that, and also to realise one has an awesome responsibility in telling that story to get it right. Because you're dealing with some of the deepest human emotions.”
[Lockerbie: Unfinished Business is at the Gilded Balloon Teviot until 30 August (not 18) 2:30pm – 3:40pm]
Flora Swire boarded a Boeing 747-100 named Clipper Maid of the Seas at London Heathrow. On 21 December 1988—the day before her 24th birthday—she was travelling to New York to spend Christmas with her American boyfriend Hart Lidov. Earlier that year she had graduated in medicine with a first-class degree and top of her class.
There was no touch-down at JFK. At 7.03pm, 30,000 feet above the Scottish town of Lockerbie, a bomb exploded on board ripping through the aircraft's fuselage. PanAm Flight 103 gradually disintegrated over two horrific minutes before impact on Sherwood Crescent creating a large crater and destroying homes. There were 270 fatalities.
Since the disaster, Flora's father Dr Jim Swire has fought to bring those responsible for the Lockerbie bombings to justice. Now he's now the focus of a play by writer and actor David Benson. (...)
“I was doing some research online on the subject of Lockerbie, idly browsing news stories, and I came across the website of Dr Jim Swire. I saw he had written a book—as yet unpublished—giving his account of what had happened, written with a co-researcher, Peter Biddulph.”
“They had a note saying to leave your email address if you'd like to know when the book is published. So I sent them an email and had a message back very quickly from Biddulph saying 'I see that you're an actor and you write one-man shows. Perhaps you'd be interested in having a look at this unpublished text and seeing if there's anything you can do with it'.”
Even though the topic was not on his agenda, Benson replied. “I would love to read it anyway so he sent me a copy of it and I was absolutely transfixed.” Fascinated by Dr Swire's traumatic journey, his campaign of enormous courage, and his anger and grief at the loss of his daughter, Benson spent months reading up on the subject and secured a rare 90-minute meeting with Swire. “He answered every question I had. Thoroughly as he always does. And I felt able to go away and write a script that would tell his story and tell things that maybe he can't tell.” (...)
When I ask Benson, now 48, if constructing his play has been emotional, he reveals it has generated anger above all else. He blames governments for “doing everything they could do block the Lockerbie relatives' path to justice. They had many reasons for not wanting the true story coming out and they very cynically produced a cover story that these Libyans were supposed to have done it. That is a horrendous, sickening insult to the grief of the people who are still seeking justice.”
Yet behind Benson's anger is deep sympathy for his subject, something he is not accustomed to finding in his work: “When I look at Dr Swire's story and realising how much he's lost, understanding the depth of his grief that I sometimes find it quite overwhelming in even speaking the lines I've written myself.
“He goes from being very formal and in control, giving out this information fact by fact about what happened, and then once in a while having to admit that his beautiful lovely daughter who he adored is dead, died in a horrible way and that he will never see her again. I think it's impossible not to be touched by that, and also to realise one has an awesome responsibility in telling that story to get it right. Because you're dealing with some of the deepest human emotions.”
[Lockerbie: Unfinished Business is at the Gilded Balloon Teviot until 30 August (not 18) 2:30pm – 3:40pm]
Friday, 13 August 2010
Daily Mail "miracle cure drug" nonsense
The Mail website is running a story headlined "Bomber freed to die is now being given 'miracle cure' drug: Treatment could add 18 months to his life".
The drug in question is Taxotere which, in some cancer patients, can prolong life for a few months. It is not a miracle cure, but since when has anyone expected accuracy to be a consideration for a Daily Mail headline writer?
Three paragraphs from the long story read:
"Although the gruelling treatment is 'going well', according to the [anonymous Tripoli] source, it has left Megrahi feeling depressed. He also complains of black moods because of the negative way his case has been portrayed around the world, and especially in Britain and America.
"Megrahi has always maintained his innocence of Britain's worst ever terrorist atrocity, believing he will one day prove this beyond doubt.
"The source in Tripoli said: 'His number one aim is to prove he had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and this is the reason he is putting so much effort into regaining his health.'"
The drug in question is Taxotere which, in some cancer patients, can prolong life for a few months. It is not a miracle cure, but since when has anyone expected accuracy to be a consideration for a Daily Mail headline writer?
Three paragraphs from the long story read:
"Although the gruelling treatment is 'going well', according to the [anonymous Tripoli] source, it has left Megrahi feeling depressed. He also complains of black moods because of the negative way his case has been portrayed around the world, and especially in Britain and America.
"Megrahi has always maintained his innocence of Britain's worst ever terrorist atrocity, believing he will one day prove this beyond doubt.
"The source in Tripoli said: 'His number one aim is to prove he had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, and this is the reason he is putting so much effort into regaining his health.'"
Safety of ‘unassailable’ Megrahi verdict has been shown to be increasingly suspect
[This is the heading over a group of letters published in today's edition of The Herald. The following are excerpts:]
What a contrast there is between the pedantic and mean-minded attack by Brian Fitzpatrick on Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Letters, August 12), and the superb letter you published from Dr Jim Swire (August 10). Mr Fitzpatrick writes of the “silencing of the victims and their families”, yet Dr Swire is himself a family victim, as his daughter was murdered on Pan Am flight 103 – and he has not been silent.
Mr Fitzpatrick assumes that the initial verdict is unassailable, an incredible supposition already effectively demolished by Dr Swire and many of your other correspondents. The idea that one low-grade Libyan official single-handedly masterminded the global plot to blow up the plane is too absurd to be taken seriously – as was the evidence of Tony Gauci, the prosecution’s star witness.
Robert Black QC, an emeritus professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, who was one of the architects of the original trial in Holland, has said: “I am still absolutely convinced that I am right. No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted him, and it is an absolute disgrace and outrage what the Scottish court did.” This “absolute disgrace and outrage” is nevertheless defended by Mr Fitzpatrick, whose criticism is revealed as the typical Labourite, anti-SNP, knee-jerk reaction it undoubtedly is.
Brian M Quail
Brian Fitzpatrick comments today on Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s “alarming naivety” about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (Letters, August 12). I would rather describe the cardinal as saintly and prophetic. Christ himself was reported as saying that a prophet is never honoured in his own country.
Veronica Gordon Smith
As a former Labour Party MSP, it is not surprising that Mr Fitzpatrick should question Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s ministerial competence in authorising the release of Megrahi on compassionate grounds. That is what an opposition is for, and not all Nationalists agreed with the release either.
However, I do wonder what Mr Fitzpatrick would have thought had Megrahi been released as part of Tony Blair’s prisoner transfer agreement, in return for oil-drilling rights in Libya, as was the intention until Mr Blair was reminded that he had no jurisdiction over this particular prisoner. For ministerial incompetence, he should look no further than the previous Labour government.
Richard McHarg
I was surprised at the vigour with which Brian Fitzpatrick took Cardinal Keith O’Brien to task for his public statement regarding the Megrahi affair.
A Catholic myself, it did not occur to me for one moment to regard the cardinal’s statement in any way as an official one made on behalf of the Catholic Church.
It struck me simply as an opinion expressed by a prominent Scot, one that might have been expressed by some other prominent Scot, say an academic, industrialist, trade unionist or Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. (...)
If one wants an example of a bizarre public statement, one might cite the one made by Prime Minister David Cameron that the UK is a junior partner to the US.
Leaving aside Britain’s position during the Second World War, is it in any way reasonable or comprehensible for one country to declare itself publicly to be a junior partner of another? (...)
I think Cardinal O’Brien could reasonably be regarded as a prominent member of the Scottish establishment and I was greatly heartened by the ability of one such member to put his head above the parapet and speak up for his country.
Ian Ross
[Two further letters critical of Mr Fitzpatrick's position are published in The Herald of Saturday, 14 August. They can be read here.]
What a contrast there is between the pedantic and mean-minded attack by Brian Fitzpatrick on Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Letters, August 12), and the superb letter you published from Dr Jim Swire (August 10). Mr Fitzpatrick writes of the “silencing of the victims and their families”, yet Dr Swire is himself a family victim, as his daughter was murdered on Pan Am flight 103 – and he has not been silent.
Mr Fitzpatrick assumes that the initial verdict is unassailable, an incredible supposition already effectively demolished by Dr Swire and many of your other correspondents. The idea that one low-grade Libyan official single-handedly masterminded the global plot to blow up the plane is too absurd to be taken seriously – as was the evidence of Tony Gauci, the prosecution’s star witness.
Robert Black QC, an emeritus professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, who was one of the architects of the original trial in Holland, has said: “I am still absolutely convinced that I am right. No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted him, and it is an absolute disgrace and outrage what the Scottish court did.” This “absolute disgrace and outrage” is nevertheless defended by Mr Fitzpatrick, whose criticism is revealed as the typical Labourite, anti-SNP, knee-jerk reaction it undoubtedly is.
Brian M Quail
Brian Fitzpatrick comments today on Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s “alarming naivety” about the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi (Letters, August 12). I would rather describe the cardinal as saintly and prophetic. Christ himself was reported as saying that a prophet is never honoured in his own country.
Veronica Gordon Smith
As a former Labour Party MSP, it is not surprising that Mr Fitzpatrick should question Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s ministerial competence in authorising the release of Megrahi on compassionate grounds. That is what an opposition is for, and not all Nationalists agreed with the release either.
However, I do wonder what Mr Fitzpatrick would have thought had Megrahi been released as part of Tony Blair’s prisoner transfer agreement, in return for oil-drilling rights in Libya, as was the intention until Mr Blair was reminded that he had no jurisdiction over this particular prisoner. For ministerial incompetence, he should look no further than the previous Labour government.
Richard McHarg
I was surprised at the vigour with which Brian Fitzpatrick took Cardinal Keith O’Brien to task for his public statement regarding the Megrahi affair.
A Catholic myself, it did not occur to me for one moment to regard the cardinal’s statement in any way as an official one made on behalf of the Catholic Church.
It struck me simply as an opinion expressed by a prominent Scot, one that might have been expressed by some other prominent Scot, say an academic, industrialist, trade unionist or Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. (...)
If one wants an example of a bizarre public statement, one might cite the one made by Prime Minister David Cameron that the UK is a junior partner to the US.
Leaving aside Britain’s position during the Second World War, is it in any way reasonable or comprehensible for one country to declare itself publicly to be a junior partner of another? (...)
I think Cardinal O’Brien could reasonably be regarded as a prominent member of the Scottish establishment and I was greatly heartened by the ability of one such member to put his head above the parapet and speak up for his country.
Ian Ross
[Two further letters critical of Mr Fitzpatrick's position are published in The Herald of Saturday, 14 August. They can be read here.]
Thursday, 12 August 2010
Blowing the lid off Lockerbie
"In law there is a credible alternative to the Crown theory about the explosions on Pan Am 103 which must produce doubt about the merits of the Crown case. Mr Megrahi, you deserve the benefit of that doubt and I, along with so many decent people in Scotland, am deeply embarrassed and terribly sorry that you did not receive the benefit of that doubt. I sincerely hope you manage to read this."
This is the concluding paragraph of a long essay published on the Veterans Today website by Robbie the Pict. It sets out the case for questioning the accepted wisdom that Pan Am 103 was destroyed by a bomb (rather than the accidental explosion of -- illegally carried -- munitions by RadHaz).
This is the concluding paragraph of a long essay published on the Veterans Today website by Robbie the Pict. It sets out the case for questioning the accepted wisdom that Pan Am 103 was destroyed by a bomb (rather than the accidental explosion of -- illegally carried -- munitions by RadHaz).
Fringe stages father's quest for Lockerbie justice
[This is the headline over a Reuters news agency report on the US ABC News website. It reads in part:]
The Lockerbie disaster has come to the Edinburgh Fringe stage as a compelling 70-minute monologue which pours fuel onto a blazing dispute about the man convicted of the airliner bombing over Scotland 22 years ago.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was imprisoned in Scotland after his conviction for bombing Pan Am flight 103, which blew apart on a flight from London to New York in December 1988, killing 270 people, most of them American.
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business tells the tale of Doctor Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the plane and who is convinced that Megrahi's conviction was a travesty of justice. The play follows his fight for "truth and justice."
The play has come to the stage in the midst of continuing American fury over the Scottish justice secretary's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate medical grounds last year.
The decision caused outrage among the families of victims in the United States and has set the US Senate on a collision course with Scotland's devolved parliament in Edinburgh.
The production -- written and acted by David Benson in the persona of Swire -- has left packed audiences uncertain of whether a round of applause is an appropriate gesture of appreciation as the curtains close on the hushed final scene.
Benson said the script was drawn from interviews with Swire, documentary sources and the devastated father's own account of his life since December 21, 1988, in an as-yet unpublished book. (...)
Two Libyans were eventually accused of the Lockerbie bombing. One was acquitted but Megrahi was found guilty in 2001 and given a 27-year sentence in a Scottish prison near Glasgow.
Unfinished Business traces Swire's growing fears that the original conviction was wrong and his quest to get to the bottom of what happened. A Scottish review commission said in 2007 there were grounds to believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice and a High Court appeal process opened in 2008.
Swire hoped the appeal would uncover the facts, but Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer and withdrew his appeal as he was released on compassionate grounds to return to Tripoli just a year ago.
Swire and his wife Jane saw a preview of the play in Oxford before it came to Edinburgh. Benson said he was thankful he had not known they were in the audience.
"I didn't fancy going to it really," Swire told Reuters by telephone from his home. "I thought I would find it very difficult to cope with it. But it was unsentimental I thought, accurate I thought...and I didn't find it difficult to cope with at all."
He is now seeking a "properly empowered inquiry" to probe all aspects of the case.
"So it's very useful to have this play on show at the moment."
The Lockerbie disaster has come to the Edinburgh Fringe stage as a compelling 70-minute monologue which pours fuel onto a blazing dispute about the man convicted of the airliner bombing over Scotland 22 years ago.
Abdel Basset al-Megrahi was imprisoned in Scotland after his conviction for bombing Pan Am flight 103, which blew apart on a flight from London to New York in December 1988, killing 270 people, most of them American.
Lockerbie: Unfinished Business tells the tale of Doctor Jim Swire, whose 24-year-old daughter Flora died on the plane and who is convinced that Megrahi's conviction was a travesty of justice. The play follows his fight for "truth and justice."
The play has come to the stage in the midst of continuing American fury over the Scottish justice secretary's decision to release Megrahi on compassionate medical grounds last year.
The decision caused outrage among the families of victims in the United States and has set the US Senate on a collision course with Scotland's devolved parliament in Edinburgh.
The production -- written and acted by David Benson in the persona of Swire -- has left packed audiences uncertain of whether a round of applause is an appropriate gesture of appreciation as the curtains close on the hushed final scene.
Benson said the script was drawn from interviews with Swire, documentary sources and the devastated father's own account of his life since December 21, 1988, in an as-yet unpublished book. (...)
Two Libyans were eventually accused of the Lockerbie bombing. One was acquitted but Megrahi was found guilty in 2001 and given a 27-year sentence in a Scottish prison near Glasgow.
Unfinished Business traces Swire's growing fears that the original conviction was wrong and his quest to get to the bottom of what happened. A Scottish review commission said in 2007 there were grounds to believe there may have been a miscarriage of justice and a High Court appeal process opened in 2008.
Swire hoped the appeal would uncover the facts, but Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer and withdrew his appeal as he was released on compassionate grounds to return to Tripoli just a year ago.
Swire and his wife Jane saw a preview of the play in Oxford before it came to Edinburgh. Benson said he was thankful he had not known they were in the audience.
"I didn't fancy going to it really," Swire told Reuters by telephone from his home. "I thought I would find it very difficult to cope with it. But it was unsentimental I thought, accurate I thought...and I didn't find it difficult to cope with at all."
He is now seeking a "properly empowered inquiry" to probe all aspects of the case.
"So it's very useful to have this play on show at the moment."
Letter to editors
[What follows is the text of a letter sent on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi campaign to the editors of selected newspapers and broadcast news media in the United Kingdom and abroad.]
In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland.
Whilst there have been demands from a number of quarters to open an inquiry into how and why Mr Al-Megrahi was availed of compassionate release, you will certainly also be aware of the efforts of others to not only investigate this but to establish a full, comprehensive and open public inquiry into the entire Lockerbie affair including:
*The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
*The police investigation of the tragedy.
*The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
*The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
*The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
*The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. In the latter months of 2008, a campaign was launched with the express aim of obtaining Justice for Megrahi (JFM). Since its founding, it has petitioned the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation, the Government of Malta, and most recently the Scottish Government and members of the US Senate to support the establishment of a comprehensive, public inquiry, of the type mentioned above, into all matters pertaining to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie tragedy. At the heart of this campaign from its inception has lain a commitment to see transparency prevail and justice done in a case which from the outset has been afflicted with accusations of buck passing, obfuscation, political interference and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Confusion still continues to reign where this case is concerned, ranging from some believing that Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted by eight Law Lords to his having been released via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). Both of these contentions are erroneous. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of fact, and it has always been central to this campaign, whether he actually committed the offence he has been convicted of or not, that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice based simply on the evidence laid before the three judges at Zeist by the prosecution. We do not seek to attribute blame for the events of 21st December 1988. We do not seek retribution for investigatory or judicial shortcomings. We seek justice in the name of justice.
Courts of fact can and do get things wrong. This, after all, is precisely why we rely on the institution of the Court of Appeal. Where most convicts would be happy to have their case put before the appeal court on just one ground for appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal by the SCCRC on no fewer than six grounds. Taking this into account, we also fully and deeply identify with those bereaved friends and families who, perfectly understandably, believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe. Nevertheless, if Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. Justice should not and must not be viewed as a tool of convenience. It is our belief that all of the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.
For your convenience, you will find included below the letters sent to Mr Salmond and Mr McAskill, and, additionally, to the American senators. Furthermore, you will also find the list of signatories who are endorsing the objective of opening a Lockerbie public inquiry.
It is our belief that the fourth estate owes a moral obligation, not only to its readers and viewers but to the bereaved of Lockerbie especially, to commit its voice firmly behind demands for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. MSPs have already come out in support of such an inquiry, and although both Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have endorsed such in principle, they seem hesitant to grasp the nettle where it comes to setting one up in Scotland. Moreover, the media have a vital and powerful role to play in ensuring that our Scottish justice system, which is currently regarded internationally as an embarrassment, and is seen as demonstrably malleable by political hands, is reinstated to its rightful former position as an institution which can be looked up to, respected and trusted by the people.
With this in mind, we wish to extend to you an invitation to place your name alongside those of the other signatories on the letter to the Scottish Government. We feel that support of this nature from yourself, given the prominent stature of your institution, would add considerable weight to promoting the aims of this campaign.
The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.
The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Mr Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. Media pressure is a vital tool in achieving this in a case where the judiciary and politicians seem thus far to be failing. We hope that you will find the arguments presented here and in the letters below convincing enough for you to add your name to the list of signatories.
This letter is being sent to multiple press and media outlets.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi committee member).
THE CURRENT LIST OF SIGNATORIES.
Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mrs Jean Berkley
(Co-ordinator UK Families Flight 103 and mother of Alistair Berkley: PA103 victim).
Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the Architect of the Camp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mr Robert Forrester
(Justice for Megrahi campaign committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103).
Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).
Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
LETTER TO FIRST MINISTER MR SALMOND (THE IDENTICAL CONTENT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE MR MACASKILL), 22ND JULY 2010.
Dear First Minister,
I write on behalf of the current signatories to the petition to the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (published in September 2009) requesting the institution of a full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy at Lockerbie in 1988 and the subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist, which resulted in his conviction in 2001 for the murder of 270 people. (...)
In August of 2009, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, sanctioned the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi on medical grounds. No matter which side of the fence one is on, Mr MacAskill took a sensitive and challenging decision on an issue that was always going to be contentious and fraught; his conclusion was based on medical advice suggesting that Mr Al-Megrahi's life expectancy might not exceed a total of three months. Medical judgments, much like legal ones, are based on practice and precedent. Medicine, however much we may wish it to be, is not an exact science, hence it is referred to by the term practice; no case is identical to any other in all respects and there must, therefore, always be an element of guesswork involved. Nevertheless, no sooner had the three month period elapsed than protests were emanating from predictable quarters in debating chambers and the press questioning why a Greater Power had neglected to avail Mr Al-Megrahi of an audience.
In light of the recent difficulties being encountered by BP in the USA, these voices have been encouraged to become increasingly shrill: with ill-informed aspersions being cast on an almost daily basis in the direction of the Scottish Government. Mr MacAskill employed due process under Scots law in acting as he did. He did not resort to the device of the PTA but instead applied a facility that is enshrined in Scots law, namely, compassionate release. All Scots have just cause to be proud of their system in this regard insofar as, combined with the fact that we have no death sentence available to us, we can demonstrate that we do not bring our system down to the level of the murderer to resolve our problems, and that we are compassionate. In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release.
In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition). Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.
From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.
Finally, we should point out that the reason the petition was originally directed to the United Nations was because we considered that although the General Assembly does not have within its gift the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before it (unlike the Security Council), given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow. We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start.
Thank you kindly for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Committee member of Justice for Megrahi).
LETTER TO SENATORS GILLIBRAND, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ AND SCHUMER, 29TH JULY 2010.
Dear Senators Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer,
You may be aware that a group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open, public inquiry which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).
For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html
In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves. We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged by his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.
With regard to the release, we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details: http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm
As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of the prisoner’s medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock. See also:
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm
Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue to claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.
It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.
High above courthouses worldwide stands a statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and its instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished, we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.
An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we are all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.
We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.
We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester.
In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland.
Whilst there have been demands from a number of quarters to open an inquiry into how and why Mr Al-Megrahi was availed of compassionate release, you will certainly also be aware of the efforts of others to not only investigate this but to establish a full, comprehensive and open public inquiry into the entire Lockerbie affair including:
*The Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103.
*The police investigation of the tragedy.
*The subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial.
*The acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.
*The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission's (SCCRC) referral of Mr Al-Megrahi's case to the Court of Appeal.
*The dropping of this second appeal and the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi.
Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. In the latter months of 2008, a campaign was launched with the express aim of obtaining Justice for Megrahi (JFM). Since its founding, it has petitioned the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation, the Government of Malta, and most recently the Scottish Government and members of the US Senate to support the establishment of a comprehensive, public inquiry, of the type mentioned above, into all matters pertaining to the Pan Am 103/Lockerbie tragedy. At the heart of this campaign from its inception has lain a commitment to see transparency prevail and justice done in a case which from the outset has been afflicted with accusations of buck passing, obfuscation, political interference and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Confusion still continues to reign where this case is concerned, ranging from some believing that Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted by eight Law Lords to his having been released via the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA). Both of these contentions are erroneous. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of fact, and it has always been central to this campaign, whether he actually committed the offence he has been convicted of or not, that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice based simply on the evidence laid before the three judges at Zeist by the prosecution. We do not seek to attribute blame for the events of 21st December 1988. We do not seek retribution for investigatory or judicial shortcomings. We seek justice in the name of justice.
Courts of fact can and do get things wrong. This, after all, is precisely why we rely on the institution of the Court of Appeal. Where most convicts would be happy to have their case put before the appeal court on just one ground for appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal by the SCCRC on no fewer than six grounds. Taking this into account, we also fully and deeply identify with those bereaved friends and families who, perfectly understandably, believe the conviction to be safe. Clearly they, more than any other group, would be utterly devastated if it were to be established that the conviction was unsafe. Nevertheless, if Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal is not to be heard, the only option remaining is an inquiry. Justice should not and must not be viewed as a tool of convenience. It is our belief that all of the bereaved, regardless of their positions, have been done a disservice under Scots Law at Zeist.
For your convenience, you will find included below the letters sent to Mr Salmond and Mr McAskill, and, additionally, to the American senators. Furthermore, you will also find the list of signatories who are endorsing the objective of opening a Lockerbie public inquiry.
It is our belief that the fourth estate owes a moral obligation, not only to its readers and viewers but to the bereaved of Lockerbie especially, to commit its voice firmly behind demands for an inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist. MSPs have already come out in support of such an inquiry, and although both Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill have endorsed such in principle, they seem hesitant to grasp the nettle where it comes to setting one up in Scotland. Moreover, the media have a vital and powerful role to play in ensuring that our Scottish justice system, which is currently regarded internationally as an embarrassment, and is seen as demonstrably malleable by political hands, is reinstated to its rightful former position as an institution which can be looked up to, respected and trusted by the people.
With this in mind, we wish to extend to you an invitation to place your name alongside those of the other signatories on the letter to the Scottish Government. We feel that support of this nature from yourself, given the prominent stature of your institution, would add considerable weight to promoting the aims of this campaign.
The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet.
*The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
*The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
*The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
*Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.
This is undeniably a Scottish issue.
The time to act is now. The once good name of Scottish justice can be redeemed. It must not be seen to die with Mr Al-Megrahi and finally sink into a mire of disrepute. Media pressure is a vital tool in achieving this in a case where the judiciary and politicians seem thus far to be failing. We hope that you will find the arguments presented here and in the letters below convincing enough for you to add your name to the list of signatories.
This letter is being sent to multiple press and media outlets.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Justice for Megrahi committee member).
THE CURRENT LIST OF SIGNATORIES.
Mr John Ashton
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mrs Jean Berkley
(Co-ordinator UK Families Flight 103 and mother of Alistair Berkley: PA103 victim).
Professor Robert Black QC
(Commonly referred to as the Architect of the Camp van Zeist Trial).
Professor Noam Chomsky
(Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Mr Tam Dalyell
(Member of Parliament: 1962 – 2005, Father of the House: 2001 – 2005).
Mr Ian Ferguson
(Co-author of ‘Cover-up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie’).
Mr Robert Forrester
(Justice for Megrahi campaign committee member).
Ms Christine Grahame
(Member of the Scottish Parliament and justice campaigner).
Mr Ian Hislop
(Editor of Private Eye: one of the UK’s most highly regarded journals of political comment).
Father Pat Keegans
(Lockerbie Parish Priest at the time of the bombing of Pan Am 103).
Mr Iain McKie
(Retired Police Superintendent and justice campaigner).
Ms Heather Mills
(Reporter for Private Eye specialising in matters relating to Pan Am flight 103).
Mr Denis Phipps
(Aviation security expert).
Mr Steven Raeburn
(Editor of The Firm, one of Scotland’s foremost legal journals).
Doctor Jim Swire
(Justice campaigner. Dr Swire’s daughter, Flora, was killed in the Pan Am 103 incident).
Sir Teddy Taylor
(Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and Member of Parliament from 1964 to 2005).
His Grace, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Mpilo Tutu
(Defender of human rights worldwide, Nobel Peace Prize winner and headed South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission).
LETTER TO FIRST MINISTER MR SALMOND (THE IDENTICAL CONTENT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE MR MACASKILL), 22ND JULY 2010.
Dear First Minister,
I write on behalf of the current signatories to the petition to the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (published in September 2009) requesting the institution of a full, open and public inquiry into the investigation of the Pan Am flight 103 tragedy at Lockerbie in 1988 and the subsequent trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi at Kamp van Zeist, which resulted in his conviction in 2001 for the murder of 270 people. (...)
In August of 2009, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill MSP, sanctioned the compassionate release of Mr Al-Megrahi on medical grounds. No matter which side of the fence one is on, Mr MacAskill took a sensitive and challenging decision on an issue that was always going to be contentious and fraught; his conclusion was based on medical advice suggesting that Mr Al-Megrahi's life expectancy might not exceed a total of three months. Medical judgments, much like legal ones, are based on practice and precedent. Medicine, however much we may wish it to be, is not an exact science, hence it is referred to by the term practice; no case is identical to any other in all respects and there must, therefore, always be an element of guesswork involved. Nevertheless, no sooner had the three month period elapsed than protests were emanating from predictable quarters in debating chambers and the press questioning why a Greater Power had neglected to avail Mr Al-Megrahi of an audience.
In light of the recent difficulties being encountered by BP in the USA, these voices have been encouraged to become increasingly shrill: with ill-informed aspersions being cast on an almost daily basis in the direction of the Scottish Government. Mr MacAskill employed due process under Scots law in acting as he did. He did not resort to the device of the PTA but instead applied a facility that is enshrined in Scots law, namely, compassionate release. All Scots have just cause to be proud of their system in this regard insofar as, combined with the fact that we have no death sentence available to us, we can demonstrate that we do not bring our system down to the level of the murderer to resolve our problems, and that we are compassionate. In response to the current attacks from both the USA and within the UK, it is now being suggested that an inquiry might be opened under the auspices of the Scottish Government into the circumstances of Mr Al-Megrahi's release.
In our view, it is vital that the scope of any such inquiry ought also to encompass all aspects of the Lockerbie affair from December 1988 to the present day, including the investigation of the disaster and the Zeist trial itself (as laid out in the UN petition). Clearly, it is our belief that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice, and in that regard, simply to focus on the questions arising from his release is of secondary import. It goes without saying, therefore, that we would be fully supportive of a full, public inquiry of this type should Edinburgh wish to open one.
From a political standpoint, such a course of action might succeed in fanning the existing flames, however, we feel that to institute a more wide-ranging inquiry could well serve to silence some of the critics, or at least make them more circumspect before going public. A step of this nature may also go some way towards restoring faith in Scotland's once justifiably envied system of criminal justice, which is now internationally derided as a result of our continuing failure to tackle the problems created and sustained by the Lockerbie affair.
Finally, we should point out that the reason the petition was originally directed to the United Nations was because we considered that although the General Assembly does not have within its gift the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before it (unlike the Security Council), given the international nature of the incident and the fact that there seemed to be little appetite to open an inquiry in the either Westminster or Holyrood at the time, it was the appropriate route to follow. We hope that Holyrood will now take up the gauntlet and attempt to lift the fog that many feel has obscured aspects of this case from the very start.
Thank you kindly for your time and attention.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Forrester (Committee member of Justice for Megrahi).
LETTER TO SENATORS GILLIBRAND, KERRY, LAUTENBERG, MENENDEZ AND SCHUMER, 29TH JULY 2010.
Dear Senators Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Menendez and Schumer,
You may be aware that a group of signatories, many of international repute, have lobbied both the United Nations Organisation General Assembly (September 2009) and more recently the Scottish Government (July 2010) in an effort to establish a thorough, all encompassing and open, public inquiry which would cover all matters relating to: the investigation into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 (1988), the Kamp van Zeist trail of Mr Al-Megrahi and Mr Fhimah, the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi (2001), and the eventual release of Mr Al-Megrahi (2009). The petition to the Scottish Government received the endorsement of seventeen signatories (see at the end: the list of signatories to the letter sent to the Scottish Government last week followed by a copy of the UN petition).
For your convenience, this link will provide you with a report on the Scottish letter and a link to the letter itself. The letter was sent both to First Minister, Alex Salmond, and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill:
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2045/Exclusive%3A_Salmond_pressed_to_instigate_inquiry_into_Pan_Am_103_by_international_coalition_including_Tutu%2C_Chomsky%2C_Dalyell%2C_Black_and_Swire.html
In light of recent developments taking place in Washington, signatories to the Scottish Government letter wish to extend an invitation to members of the Senate of the United States of America to add their support to lobbying the Scottish Government for an inquiry by becoming signatories to the letter themselves. We all deeply sympathise with the position of those bereaved families and friends resultant from the 103 tragedy who are satisfied that the Zeist conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi was safe. Given their position, it is hardly surprising that they are outraged by his release and return to Libya. Nevertheless, on the basis of the evidence laid before their Lordships at Kamp van Zeist, it has always been our contention that Mr Al-Megrahi may have been a victim of a gross miscarriage of justice. This view is clearly supported by the fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) referred the case to the Court of Appeal. This appeal was in progress up to a point immediately prior to Mr Al-Megrahi's release. We feel that the current focus on the circumstances surrounding Mr Al-Megrahi's release, whilst engaging in their own right, pale into insignificance if indeed there was a miscarriage of justice.
With regard to the release, we too have questions. The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) reached by Prime Minister Blair and Colonel Gaddafi appears to be in direct contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1192. It, moreover, seems to be rendered invalid by an existing agreement between the UK and US governments, which states that the prisoner was required to serve out his sentence in Scotland. If the PTA was in violation of the aforementioned, why was outrage not expressed on both sides of the Atlantic at the time of its being signed? See this link for details: http://i-p-o.org/Megrahi-statement-Koechler-IPO-nr-21Aug2009.htm
As it happens, and as you will be cognisant of, the PTA was not utilised in the release of Mr Al-Megrahi. He was released via due process under Scots Law by the device of Compassionate Release available the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Mr MacAskill, resulting from consideration of the prisoner’s medical condition. However, the following sequence of events may be worthy of investigation: Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal commences, Mr MacAskill visits Mr Al-Megrahi in Greenock gaol for a private interview, Mr Al-Megrahi drops his appeal, Mr Al-Megrahi is released and repatriated to Libya. Given that under Scots Law there is no requirement to drop an appeal to be granted Compassionate Release, many of us would like to know why this was done and what transpired during the meeting between Mr MacAskill and Mr Al-Megrahi at Greenock. See also:
http://i-p-o.org/IPO-nr-Megrahi-release-investigation-21July2010.htm
Dr Swire, in his capacity as one of those many bereaved by the tragedy over twenty-one years ago now, has already made an impassioned plea for support in his quest for justice to Senator Kerry recently. It is essential, even after the passing of so many years, to address the question marks which continue to hang over the entire Lockerbie affair. The bereaved rightfully deserved justice from Zeist in the same way that Mr Al-Megrahi rightfully expected it. However, the verdict produced such controversy that it is simply not sustainable to continue to claim that it was safe because it was the one preferred by the three judges at the time. This is why we have courts of appeal and why the SCCRC referred the case to the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh. Now that this legal avenue is no longer open, it appears that the only possible recourse to addressing the doubts surrounding the issue is by means of an inquiry.
It is inappropriate in this letter to list the litany of shortcomings in both the investigation of the disaster itself and the prosecution evidence laid before the court at the subsequent trial. The criticism is copious and has long been in the public domain. Professor Robert Black (oft referred to as the ‘architect’ of Zeist) and Dr Hans Köchler (International Observer at Zeist – appointed by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan) have both variously and very publicly stated views ranging from the verdict’s being a clear miscarriage of justice to one which seemed more concerned with political expediency than justice. If protestations of this calibre alone are not enough to generate an inquiry, one feels obliged to ask: what is? If ever a case were crying out for an inquiry, it is this one. Not only for the bereaved, not only for Mr Al-Megrahi but for justice itself.
High above courthouses worldwide stands a statue of Justice holding scales in her left hand and in her right a sword. She is a symbol of the glue that binds together the very fabric of society. We depend on justice and its instrument, the law, to provide cohesion in our relationships. If justice loses its lustre or becomes tarnished, we degenerate into a world of cynicism and chaos. Surely it is a sign of a great society if that society can reflect on its deeds and not be afraid to revisit perceived mistakes to seek redress and right wrongs where they have been committed. To have the resolve to take such action is not an admission of weakness but a sign of supreme strength.
An inquiry will no doubt bring with it embarrassment for some as it calls into question their reputations. However, if justice is regarded as a tool with which to achieve expedient results and defend human frailties by obscuring the truth, we are all in a very sorry state indeed. We do not seek retribution, we seek the truth. The ghosts of Lockerbie must be laid to rest.
We hope, therefore, that you will feel able to identify with the sentiments expressed in this letter and join with us in lobbying the Scottish Government by adding your names to the list of signatories.
We all thank you for your time and attention, and look forward to hearing your response.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Forrester.
Megrahi's role
[This is the heading over a letter from Tam Dalyell in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
In his lead letter under the heading "Megrahi was no innocent bystander" Robert [Durward] writes accusingly: "What is known is that al-Megrahi was a Libyan secret service agent who spent a lot of time overseas and who had access to bank accounts stuffed with cash. Perhaps he was buying fine art for Mr Gaddafi. We may never know but the inference that he was an innocent bystander is not credible."
Yes. But Mr Megrahi, in Barlinnie jail, told me that he was a buyer (ie sanctions buster) for spare parts for Libyan Arab Airlines and the Libyan oil industry, including material for Brown and Root, and scoured Europe and Africa to find equipment forbidden to Libya by American-inspired sanctions. I believed him.
The activities of a sanction buster are totally different from those of a mass murderer.
[I had deliberately ignored the Durward letter. Anyone interested in reading it can find it on The Scotsman website.]
In his lead letter under the heading "Megrahi was no innocent bystander" Robert [Durward] writes accusingly: "What is known is that al-Megrahi was a Libyan secret service agent who spent a lot of time overseas and who had access to bank accounts stuffed with cash. Perhaps he was buying fine art for Mr Gaddafi. We may never know but the inference that he was an innocent bystander is not credible."
Yes. But Mr Megrahi, in Barlinnie jail, told me that he was a buyer (ie sanctions buster) for spare parts for Libyan Arab Airlines and the Libyan oil industry, including material for Brown and Root, and scoured Europe and Africa to find equipment forbidden to Libya by American-inspired sanctions. I believed him.
The activities of a sanction buster are totally different from those of a mass murderer.
[I had deliberately ignored the Durward letter. Anyone interested in reading it can find it on The Scotsman website.]
Wednesday, 11 August 2010
A small step forward in the US?
[The following are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Wall Street Journal.]
Mr MacAskill, in granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, relied on a report from the head administrator for Scotland's prison health service saying that it was reasonable to estimate that Mr. Megrahi would die from prostate cancer within three months—though the report didn't present medical evidence directly supporting that prognosis.
At the time, Scotland's legal system was weeks away from facing a potentially embarrassing appeal over Mr Megrahi's still hotly-debated conviction for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. Mr Megrahi dropped his appeal two days before Mr MacAskill's decision to release him.
The evidence that led to Mr Megrahi's conviction has long been questioned by some legal experts.
"On absolutely crucial factual points, without which they could not have convicted [Mr Megrahi], their decision was simply contrary to the evidence," said Robert Black, a senior lawyer and former professor of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh. Mr Black helped design the special trial for Mr Megrahi held in the Netherlands under Scottish law. (...)
Scotland first fended off a legal appeal by Mr Megrahi in 2002. But in 2007, a review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified six grounds on which it concluded that there "may have been a miscarriage of justice" in the case. That triggered a second appeal for Mr Megrahi, which was due to be heard in the fall of 2009.
The appeal was set to focus on issues that had been challenged, such as the validity of statements by a key witness.
With his compassionate-release application hanging in the balance, Mr Megrahi met on Aug 6, 2009, with Mr MacAskill.
On Aug 18, Mr Megrahi dropped his appeal. Two days after that, Mr MacAskill agreed to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
Some politicians and critics have said Mr MacAskill was influenced by the pending appeal.
"Kenny would want to do what he would genuinely think is the right thing, and would try and protect the Scottish justice system," said Margo MacDonald, an independent member of the Scottish Parliament. Scotland defends the conviction, and denies Mr MacAskill traded Mr Megrahi his freedom in exchange for the dropped appeal.
"Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish Court, and Scottish Ministers do not doubt the safety of the conviction," said a spokesman for Mr MacAskill.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish prosecution service said the service "has supported the conviction vigorously and stood ready, willing and able to do so throughout the appeal process which Mr Megrahi abandoned."
Mr Megrahi wasn't legally required to drop his appeal to win compassionate release. He would have been obligated to do so under a separate petition he had filed to be returned to Libya under a prisoner-transfer agreement, but Scotland rejected that in favor of compassionate release.
Mr Megrahi was convicted based on a mix of physical and circumstantial evidence. Police traced fragments of clothes from the suitcase in which the bomb was detonated to a shop in Malta, whose owner, Antony Gauci, identified Mr Megrahi as looking "a lot" like the purchaser. Based on the evidence, the court concluded that the clothes were bought on Dec 7, 1988, a date when Mr Megrahi was staying in a nearby hotel.
The court also heard evidence that Mr Megrahi was at a Malta airport at a time when baggage was loaded onto a flight to Frankfurt, where it would be transferred to a flight to London and onto Pan Am Flight 103.
Other key parts of the prosecutor's case involved fragments of the bomb's timer, traced to a Swiss firm that admitted to dealings with Mr Megrahi and the Libyan military.
But when the Scottish commission reviewed the conviction, it said there was new evidence that raised questions about the identification by Mr Gauci. Though the commission declined to disclose this material, Mr Megrahi has since released documents claiming fresh evidence, including inconsistencies in what Mr Gauci had told prosecutors.
Mr Gauci's testimony about the date varied, according to these documents, and at one point he said the clothes were bought on Nov 29, 1988 — not Dec 7. The shopkeeper had also said Mr Megrahi bought the clothes before the switching on of local Christmas lights, while evidence submitted by Mr Megrahi's defense claims to show the lights were turned on earlier.
There also was previously undisclosed evidence that suggested that Mr Gauci had expressed interest in a financial reward prior to testifying, which Mr Megrahi's lawyers said raises questions about the reliability of the witness.
The documents quote extracts from a British police officer's diary that said the Department of Justice offered Mr Gauci $2 million if he gave evidence. The Department of Justice denies the offering such a payment. Mr Gauci couldn't be reached for comment.
Mr MacAskill, in granting compassionate release to Mr Megrahi, relied on a report from the head administrator for Scotland's prison health service saying that it was reasonable to estimate that Mr. Megrahi would die from prostate cancer within three months—though the report didn't present medical evidence directly supporting that prognosis.
At the time, Scotland's legal system was weeks away from facing a potentially embarrassing appeal over Mr Megrahi's still hotly-debated conviction for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. Mr Megrahi dropped his appeal two days before Mr MacAskill's decision to release him.
The evidence that led to Mr Megrahi's conviction has long been questioned by some legal experts.
"On absolutely crucial factual points, without which they could not have convicted [Mr Megrahi], their decision was simply contrary to the evidence," said Robert Black, a senior lawyer and former professor of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh. Mr Black helped design the special trial for Mr Megrahi held in the Netherlands under Scottish law. (...)
Scotland first fended off a legal appeal by Mr Megrahi in 2002. But in 2007, a review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission identified six grounds on which it concluded that there "may have been a miscarriage of justice" in the case. That triggered a second appeal for Mr Megrahi, which was due to be heard in the fall of 2009.
The appeal was set to focus on issues that had been challenged, such as the validity of statements by a key witness.
With his compassionate-release application hanging in the balance, Mr Megrahi met on Aug 6, 2009, with Mr MacAskill.
On Aug 18, Mr Megrahi dropped his appeal. Two days after that, Mr MacAskill agreed to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
Some politicians and critics have said Mr MacAskill was influenced by the pending appeal.
"Kenny would want to do what he would genuinely think is the right thing, and would try and protect the Scottish justice system," said Margo MacDonald, an independent member of the Scottish Parliament. Scotland defends the conviction, and denies Mr MacAskill traded Mr Megrahi his freedom in exchange for the dropped appeal.
"Megrahi was convicted by a Scottish Court, and Scottish Ministers do not doubt the safety of the conviction," said a spokesman for Mr MacAskill.
A spokeswoman for the Scottish prosecution service said the service "has supported the conviction vigorously and stood ready, willing and able to do so throughout the appeal process which Mr Megrahi abandoned."
Mr Megrahi wasn't legally required to drop his appeal to win compassionate release. He would have been obligated to do so under a separate petition he had filed to be returned to Libya under a prisoner-transfer agreement, but Scotland rejected that in favor of compassionate release.
Mr Megrahi was convicted based on a mix of physical and circumstantial evidence. Police traced fragments of clothes from the suitcase in which the bomb was detonated to a shop in Malta, whose owner, Antony Gauci, identified Mr Megrahi as looking "a lot" like the purchaser. Based on the evidence, the court concluded that the clothes were bought on Dec 7, 1988, a date when Mr Megrahi was staying in a nearby hotel.
The court also heard evidence that Mr Megrahi was at a Malta airport at a time when baggage was loaded onto a flight to Frankfurt, where it would be transferred to a flight to London and onto Pan Am Flight 103.
Other key parts of the prosecutor's case involved fragments of the bomb's timer, traced to a Swiss firm that admitted to dealings with Mr Megrahi and the Libyan military.
But when the Scottish commission reviewed the conviction, it said there was new evidence that raised questions about the identification by Mr Gauci. Though the commission declined to disclose this material, Mr Megrahi has since released documents claiming fresh evidence, including inconsistencies in what Mr Gauci had told prosecutors.
Mr Gauci's testimony about the date varied, according to these documents, and at one point he said the clothes were bought on Nov 29, 1988 — not Dec 7. The shopkeeper had also said Mr Megrahi bought the clothes before the switching on of local Christmas lights, while evidence submitted by Mr Megrahi's defense claims to show the lights were turned on earlier.
There also was previously undisclosed evidence that suggested that Mr Gauci had expressed interest in a financial reward prior to testifying, which Mr Megrahi's lawyers said raises questions about the reliability of the witness.
The documents quote extracts from a British police officer's diary that said the Department of Justice offered Mr Gauci $2 million if he gave evidence. The Department of Justice denies the offering such a payment. Mr Gauci couldn't be reached for comment.
Alex Salmond will not publish Lockerbie bomber medical records
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Guardian website. The following are extracts:]
Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The first minister's officials are writing a "courteous" letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers. (...)
Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi's illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.
They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.
Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.
Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate's foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi's release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.
But the senator's demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.
James Kelly, Labour's community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi's Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. "The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said," Kelly said.
"It's time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up."
Tony Kelly would not comment on his client's views.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: "Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor's opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know."
[James Kelly and Annabel Goldie should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But they are, of course, respectively, Labour and Tory politicians so perhaps no better can be expected. It is to be hoped that the First Minister in his letter to the senators does not overdo the courtesy.]
Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The first minister's officials are writing a "courteous" letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers. (...)
Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi's illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.
They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.
Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.
Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate's foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi's release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.
But the senator's demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.
James Kelly, Labour's community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi's Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. "The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said," Kelly said.
"It's time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up."
Tony Kelly would not comment on his client's views.
Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: "Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor's opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know."
[James Kelly and Annabel Goldie should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But they are, of course, respectively, Labour and Tory politicians so perhaps no better can be expected. It is to be hoped that the First Minister in his letter to the senators does not overdo the courtesy.]
Victim’s father seeks correction over luggage allegation on TV
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reads in part:]
Air Malta “is following developments” after Scottish Television on Monday reiterated the allegation that the Lockerbie bomb was loaded in Malta in an unaccompanied luggage.
“Air Malta is following the story as it develops and we will be in a better position to comment further at a later stage,” a spokesman for the national carrier said when asked whether the company was going to protest its innocence.
The airline had threatened court action some years ago when Granada TV had broadcast a similar allegation and the station had to reach an out of court settlement.
The airline has always denied it transported unaccompanied luggage. (...)
The father of one of the victims, Jim Swire, yesterday wrote to STV asking them to correct the wrong impression given by the programme that the fatal bomb was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage on an Air Malta flight in Luqa.
According to the prosecution, the luggage containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to a London-bound flight where it was again transferred to Pan-Am flight 103.
Dr Swire has long maintained that Mr al-Megrahi is innocent and has challenged the prosecution’s case implicating Malta. (...)
In comments to STV, Dr Swire talked of his “unshakeable belief” that the circumstances of his daughter’s murder “have become wrapped up in a tissue of lies”.
The prosecution’s main plank during the trial was Sliema merchant Tony Gauci who identified Mr al-Megrahi as the one who bought clothes from his shop days before the Lockerbie bombing.
Fragments of clothes from the Lockerbie crash site were traced back to Malta and Mr Gauci’s Sliema shop.
However, serious doubts were cast on Mr Gauci’s testimony because the identification of Mr al-Megrahi came only years later after the witness had seen him pictured in a magazine as a Lockerbie suspect. In fact, over the past years, the credibility of the main thesis that saw Mr al-Megrahi being convicted was seriously called into question.
Mr al-Megrahi was a Libyan secret service officer stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab airlines but Malta has always denied the bomb was loaded at Luqa airport.
[A similar story appears in Malta Today.
Amongst the many Lockerbie-related things that I wish for is that journalists would stop blithely referring to Abdelbaset Megrahi as "a secret service officer" or as an intelligence officer. Here is what I have said about this elsewhere when enumerating the evidential factors that the Zeist judges used to justify their decision to convict:]
3. Megrahi was a member of the Libyan intelligence service.
Commentary. The only evidence to this effect came from a Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka, now living in the United States under a witness protection programme. He gave evidence highly incriminating of both Megrahi and the co-accused Fhima. However, the trial judges rejected his evidence as wholly and utterly unworthy of credit, with the sole exception of his evidence regarding the Libyan intelligence service and Megrahi’s position therein. The court provides no reasons for accepting Giaka’s evidence on this issue while comprehensively rejecting it on every other matter.
Air Malta “is following developments” after Scottish Television on Monday reiterated the allegation that the Lockerbie bomb was loaded in Malta in an unaccompanied luggage.
“Air Malta is following the story as it develops and we will be in a better position to comment further at a later stage,” a spokesman for the national carrier said when asked whether the company was going to protest its innocence.
The airline had threatened court action some years ago when Granada TV had broadcast a similar allegation and the station had to reach an out of court settlement.
The airline has always denied it transported unaccompanied luggage. (...)
The father of one of the victims, Jim Swire, yesterday wrote to STV asking them to correct the wrong impression given by the programme that the fatal bomb was loaded in an unaccompanied luggage on an Air Malta flight in Luqa.
According to the prosecution, the luggage containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to a London-bound flight where it was again transferred to Pan-Am flight 103.
Dr Swire has long maintained that Mr al-Megrahi is innocent and has challenged the prosecution’s case implicating Malta. (...)
In comments to STV, Dr Swire talked of his “unshakeable belief” that the circumstances of his daughter’s murder “have become wrapped up in a tissue of lies”.
The prosecution’s main plank during the trial was Sliema merchant Tony Gauci who identified Mr al-Megrahi as the one who bought clothes from his shop days before the Lockerbie bombing.
Fragments of clothes from the Lockerbie crash site were traced back to Malta and Mr Gauci’s Sliema shop.
However, serious doubts were cast on Mr Gauci’s testimony because the identification of Mr al-Megrahi came only years later after the witness had seen him pictured in a magazine as a Lockerbie suspect. In fact, over the past years, the credibility of the main thesis that saw Mr al-Megrahi being convicted was seriously called into question.
Mr al-Megrahi was a Libyan secret service officer stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab airlines but Malta has always denied the bomb was loaded at Luqa airport.
[A similar story appears in Malta Today.
Amongst the many Lockerbie-related things that I wish for is that journalists would stop blithely referring to Abdelbaset Megrahi as "a secret service officer" or as an intelligence officer. Here is what I have said about this elsewhere when enumerating the evidential factors that the Zeist judges used to justify their decision to convict:]
3. Megrahi was a member of the Libyan intelligence service.
Commentary. The only evidence to this effect came from a Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka, now living in the United States under a witness protection programme. He gave evidence highly incriminating of both Megrahi and the co-accused Fhima. However, the trial judges rejected his evidence as wholly and utterly unworthy of credit, with the sole exception of his evidence regarding the Libyan intelligence service and Megrahi’s position therein. The court provides no reasons for accepting Giaka’s evidence on this issue while comprehensively rejecting it on every other matter.
Whole Lockerbie case must be reviewed
[This is the heading over three letters published in today's edition of The Scotsman. They read as follows:]
W Robert Durward (Letters, 10 August) points out that Megrahi's trial has never been officially acknowledged as a "travesty of justice". However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated: "The commission is of the view that based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
If we take into consideration that this was the biggest mass murder committed in Scotland in modern times, many are rightly of the belief we should rigorously review the whole case and investigate fully the glaring fragility of the evidence used in the Camp Zeist trial.
If the Scottish criminal justice system made a mistake and jailed an innocent man, then it needs to be open and honest if it ever hopes to retain the confidence of the concerned Scottish public.
David Flett
Monday's STV documentary on Lockerbie was interesting in that Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer, seemed bullish about the new evidence for the SCCRC appeal and especially the fact that Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper had been given £2 million for giving the evidence that was pivotal to Megrahi's conviction. The US government official would not comment on this, but it does raise some questions as to Gauci's impartiality.
Surely former lord advocate Lord Fraser was mistaken when he told the Sunday Times that "Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say (that he] was an apple short of a picnic". It would seem to me that Tony Gauci is very much "all there, and a wee bit mair", as they say in Fife. But whether justice was best served by this witness is another matter.
Tom Minogue
A year ago, at the height of the furore over the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Scotland was subjected to a barrage of (mostly ill-informed) hostile criticism from the United States.
At that time, you published a letter from me in which I suggested that, with Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition as examples of US justice at work, it ill-suited Hillary Clinton, amongst others, to lecture Scotland on the operation of any justice system, let alone a compassionate one. I have waited in vain for someone of influence in Scotland to express similar views in public. At last, Cardinal Keith O'Brien has spoken out.
Rather than simply "welcoming" his views (your report, 9 August), is it not time for Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to reiterate the words of Cardinal O'Brien on every possible occasion?
Alan R Irons
[The following is a letter published in today's edition of The Herald.]
Jim Swire’s is one of the most uplifting letters I have ever read in your columns (The Herald, August 10). It is a privilege to share the planet with him.
He has suffered as great a blow as anyone can – the loss of a very close relative through personal malicious violence – and yet no rancour is there.
Although he acknowledges that in American culture there is some aspect of vengeance, he does not brand them all so. He says US Lockerbie relatives are the same kind of people he has encountered here and have the same desires as he has. I think we are too ready to assign national attributes. I have many American relatives and friends, and when asked how I find Americans, I reply, some I like, a few I dislike but the great majority I do not know well enough either to like or dislike. That answer would also apply to other nationals I know well: Indians, English and Scots. I imagine it would also apply to those whom I only know in small numbers or have not yet met. Perceived national stereotypes are poor guides to behaviour.
The problem of determining the truth is a persistent one, but I feel a chimera. I have spent my working life in science where hypotheses are tested in the laboratory. Having observed the most plausible hypotheses turn out to be defective, I have little faith in any inquiry yielding the truth. If a well-equipped laboratory cannot be absolutely certain of its results, what chance is there of a committee coming to an ultimately valid conclusion when its evidence is not only volatile but dependent on human observation, not of the directed kind as in the laboratory, but rather of a casual view of an event not recognised as important at the time? Human memory, even at the best of times, is frail.
Perhaps the best we can do is, as Dr Swire suggests, have the incident looked at by a group in whom we can trust, but that will lead to a never-ending regress if we look for faults in its findings. As Dr Swire says, the relatives want closure.
Chris Parton
[As someone who yesterday spent over four hours in the company of Dr Swire and Rev John Mosey, I wish to record how wholeheartedly, in respect of each, I endorse the second sentence of Mr Parton's letter.]
W Robert Durward (Letters, 10 August) points out that Megrahi's trial has never been officially acknowledged as a "travesty of justice". However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) stated: "The commission is of the view that based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court, that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice."
If we take into consideration that this was the biggest mass murder committed in Scotland in modern times, many are rightly of the belief we should rigorously review the whole case and investigate fully the glaring fragility of the evidence used in the Camp Zeist trial.
If the Scottish criminal justice system made a mistake and jailed an innocent man, then it needs to be open and honest if it ever hopes to retain the confidence of the concerned Scottish public.
David Flett
Monday's STV documentary on Lockerbie was interesting in that Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer, seemed bullish about the new evidence for the SCCRC appeal and especially the fact that Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper had been given £2 million for giving the evidence that was pivotal to Megrahi's conviction. The US government official would not comment on this, but it does raise some questions as to Gauci's impartiality.
Surely former lord advocate Lord Fraser was mistaken when he told the Sunday Times that "Gauci was not quite the full shilling. I think even his family would say (that he] was an apple short of a picnic". It would seem to me that Tony Gauci is very much "all there, and a wee bit mair", as they say in Fife. But whether justice was best served by this witness is another matter.
Tom Minogue
A year ago, at the height of the furore over the decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Scotland was subjected to a barrage of (mostly ill-informed) hostile criticism from the United States.
At that time, you published a letter from me in which I suggested that, with Guantanamo Bay and extraordinary rendition as examples of US justice at work, it ill-suited Hillary Clinton, amongst others, to lecture Scotland on the operation of any justice system, let alone a compassionate one. I have waited in vain for someone of influence in Scotland to express similar views in public. At last, Cardinal Keith O'Brien has spoken out.
Rather than simply "welcoming" his views (your report, 9 August), is it not time for Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill to reiterate the words of Cardinal O'Brien on every possible occasion?
Alan R Irons
[The following is a letter published in today's edition of The Herald.]
Jim Swire’s is one of the most uplifting letters I have ever read in your columns (The Herald, August 10). It is a privilege to share the planet with him.
He has suffered as great a blow as anyone can – the loss of a very close relative through personal malicious violence – and yet no rancour is there.
Although he acknowledges that in American culture there is some aspect of vengeance, he does not brand them all so. He says US Lockerbie relatives are the same kind of people he has encountered here and have the same desires as he has. I think we are too ready to assign national attributes. I have many American relatives and friends, and when asked how I find Americans, I reply, some I like, a few I dislike but the great majority I do not know well enough either to like or dislike. That answer would also apply to other nationals I know well: Indians, English and Scots. I imagine it would also apply to those whom I only know in small numbers or have not yet met. Perceived national stereotypes are poor guides to behaviour.
The problem of determining the truth is a persistent one, but I feel a chimera. I have spent my working life in science where hypotheses are tested in the laboratory. Having observed the most plausible hypotheses turn out to be defective, I have little faith in any inquiry yielding the truth. If a well-equipped laboratory cannot be absolutely certain of its results, what chance is there of a committee coming to an ultimately valid conclusion when its evidence is not only volatile but dependent on human observation, not of the directed kind as in the laboratory, but rather of a casual view of an event not recognised as important at the time? Human memory, even at the best of times, is frail.
Perhaps the best we can do is, as Dr Swire suggests, have the incident looked at by a group in whom we can trust, but that will lead to a never-ending regress if we look for faults in its findings. As Dr Swire says, the relatives want closure.
Chris Parton
[As someone who yesterday spent over four hours in the company of Dr Swire and Rev John Mosey, I wish to record how wholeheartedly, in respect of each, I endorse the second sentence of Mr Parton's letter.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)