[This is the headline over a report just issued by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]
US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.
Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)
The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.
"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."
The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.
[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]
Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.
US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.
[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]
Thursday, 16 September 2010
MacAskill set to face Lockerbie FBI chief
This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. Had it been true, it would have been quite a story. The Director of the FBI Robert S Mueller III has form in relation to Lockerbie: see eg here and here and here and here.
What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.
This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:
"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."
What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.
This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:
"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
Lord MacLean on Lockerbie
[Accompanying its article on the report of the inquiry into the murder of Loyalist Billy Wright by Irish National Liberation Army prisoners at the Maze Prison in 1997, The Scotsman runs a brief profile of the retired judge, Lord MacLean, who chaired the inquiry. It reads in part:]
The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.
Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]
An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."
The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.
Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]
An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Justice officials to meet US senate team over Lockerbie
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)
Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.
The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.
It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.
[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]
Monday, 13 September 2010
First Minister's letter to US Senators
[What follows is the text of the First Minister's most recent letter to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand and Schumer.]
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.
Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.
I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.
The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.
As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.
You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.
You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.
Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.
On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.
Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:
The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.
If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.
I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.
There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.
I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.
Alex Salmond
Sunday, 12 September 2010
The Megrahi effect
The following story in the [Edinburgh] Evening News gives the perfect insight to the tactics opponents of Independence will use. Prospective Labour Councillor Bill Cook, believes the path to defeating the SNP is the 'Megrahi effect'. We released him, we did it for BP oil, on Westminster orders, we've embarrassed the nation, the USA hates us, our name is muck, we pander to terrorists, in short we're utterly useless and sanity will only be restored when Richard Baker goes to Libya, grabs Megrahi by the scruff of his neck and throws him back into his Greenock cell to die of his pretendy cancer.
The 'Megrahi effect' will be dribbled out day-after-day until the poor bastard dies, and other than 'compassion' and 'higher authority' our Scottish Government have run out of excuses. The startling lack of clarity in defending the release or even proffering a nod to the possibility that Megrahi might possibly be a victim of injustice is left ignored and unsaid. Everyone and his dog knows that the pressure on the Scottish Justice System (not for the first time) by Westminster and Washington to achieve a conviction on either of the two Lockerbie accused was immense. It didn't matter which one, as long as the West had a hate figure to blame for the destruction, we could all go back to sleeping soundly in our beds.
The stakes have increased with the senators who are vainly attempting to conflate Megrahi's release with BP winning licenses to drill for oil in Libya. All the while ignoring the fact that US oil giant Occidental have an operation in Libya twenty times the size that of BP's, all the while ignoring that fact that non US citizen employees of Occidental were moved to the Libyan Oil agency when the UN sanctions kicked in, and conveniently moved back to Occidental when they were lifted. The shell companies that Occidental set up in Switzerland surprisingly continued operating in Libya during the sanction years are, guess what, back in Occidental hands. Some might say that the USA oil grab never really ceased during the sanction years. All the while trading in black oil with the man their government are convinced ordered the murder of everyone on board Pan Am 103. (...)
The 'Megrahi Effect', how do we counter it, when our own government doesn't appear to have the balls to consider that something might be wrong with the Scottish Justice system?
[The above is from Newsnet Scotland's re-publication of a post from Mark MacLachlan's blog The Universality of Cheese.]
The 'Megrahi effect' will be dribbled out day-after-day until the poor bastard dies, and other than 'compassion' and 'higher authority' our Scottish Government have run out of excuses. The startling lack of clarity in defending the release or even proffering a nod to the possibility that Megrahi might possibly be a victim of injustice is left ignored and unsaid. Everyone and his dog knows that the pressure on the Scottish Justice System (not for the first time) by Westminster and Washington to achieve a conviction on either of the two Lockerbie accused was immense. It didn't matter which one, as long as the West had a hate figure to blame for the destruction, we could all go back to sleeping soundly in our beds.
The stakes have increased with the senators who are vainly attempting to conflate Megrahi's release with BP winning licenses to drill for oil in Libya. All the while ignoring the fact that US oil giant Occidental have an operation in Libya twenty times the size that of BP's, all the while ignoring that fact that non US citizen employees of Occidental were moved to the Libyan Oil agency when the UN sanctions kicked in, and conveniently moved back to Occidental when they were lifted. The shell companies that Occidental set up in Switzerland surprisingly continued operating in Libya during the sanction years are, guess what, back in Occidental hands. Some might say that the USA oil grab never really ceased during the sanction years. All the while trading in black oil with the man their government are convinced ordered the murder of everyone on board Pan Am 103. (...)
The 'Megrahi Effect', how do we counter it, when our own government doesn't appear to have the balls to consider that something might be wrong with the Scottish Justice system?
[The above is from Newsnet Scotland's re-publication of a post from Mark MacLachlan's blog The Universality of Cheese.]
Alex Salmond accuses US Lockerbie bomber inquiry of lacking credibility
[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
Alex Salmond has cut off communications with US senators investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber after denouncing them for twisting the evidence he has submitted.
In an angry letter to the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which is conducting the inquiry, the First Minister said their behaviour “calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation.”
Mr Salmond accused the senators of selectively quoting from Scottish Executive documents to create the “contrived” illusion the release was influenced by British commercial interests.
He also said they were “unable or unwilling to understand” that the terminally-ill bomber was freed on compassionate grounds, and not under a controversial prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) between Libya and Britain.
The First Minister concluded by saying he was “drawing a line” under his correspondence with them and would not attend a meeting with the senators’ representative, who is due to arrive in Scotland this week.
But Richard Baker, Scottish Labour justice spokesman, said he would use his talks with the official to call for the publication of the bomber’s medical reports. (...)
In a letter sent to Mr Salmond last month, on the first anniversary of the release, Senator Robert Menendez, the committee’s chair, cited five occasions on which commercial pressures were put on Mr MacAskill.
But in his reply, the First Minister branded the committee’s evidence “circumstantial”, adding: “This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong”.
He said senators had selectively quoted from evidence provided by his administration, without making clear the decision was made on judicial grounds alone.
“To then accuse the Scottish government of selectively publishing correspondence … significantly undermines your credibility,” he added.
Mr Salmond said there is evidence BP’s interests influenced the PTA, but he had opposed the British Government signing the deal in 2007. In contrast, he told the senators: “You were silent”.
He argued his administration’s opposition to the PTA, and Mr MacAskill’s rejection of Libya’s application for Megrahi to be released under the agreement, “fatally undermines your line of argument”.
To get around this, the First Minister suggested the senators have “conflated” the bomber’s failed PTA application and the successful bid for him to be released on compassionate grounds.
Despite his attempts to make clear the distinction, Mr Salmond wrote: “You seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.”
He said this failure to “accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts … calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.”
Mr Salmond said “appropriate officials” would be made available to the committee’s representative but ministers will not attend.
[The treatment of this story in The Herald of Monday 13 September can be seen here; and The Scotsman's here.]
A view from Malta
[What follows is an excerpt from Howard Hodgson's column The world around us in today's edition of The Malta Independent on Sunday.]
Not content with attempting to make a villain of BP over the Gulf oil spill in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from his own disastrous presidential performance, as I reported in June, Barak Obama has now attempted another spin trick worthy of even the ghastly Tony Blair and his hypocritical and morally bankrupt lieutenant Alistair Campbell.
America’s first mixed race President, when his politically motivated attacks on ‘British’ Petroleum failed to turn the tide of public disapproval of him, decided, instead of listening to the reasons for the disquiet, to launch another smokescreen by questioning whether perhaps BP had influenced the British and Scottish governments into releasing the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
You will recall that on 21 December 1988, Pan Am 103 exploded in mid air over Lockerbie in Scotland killing some 270 people in total, a high percentage of which were US citizens.
Eventually, al-Megrahi was convicted of this atrocity, despite protesting his innocence and with many feeling that the conviction was unsafe due to the amount of conflicting and dubious evidence. He was sentenced to serve life in a Scottish jail.
Then in 2009, he was released on humanitarian grounds due to the fact that Scottish doctors said that he had only a matter of weeks to live given the terminal nature of the cancer he was suffering from.
Many Americans, not least relatives of those slaughtered, were appalled – a feeling that became more intense when al-Megrahi was still alive a year later. This was not always an emotion shared by relatives of the British victims, some of whom seemed to have studied the case more closely and were far less convinced of his guilt.
Nevertheless, as al-Megrahi was convicted in a proper court of law, one can perhaps sympathise with those who thought that he should die in prison given the nature of his crime.
Now enter stage left America’s inept President Obama, who suggests that BP had enlisted Gordon Brown’s corrupt British government to offer the release of al-Megrahi as a sweetener to Colonel Gaddafi in order to land a 900-million-dollar deal with Libya.
Therefore, a wicked British government had colluded with a wicked ‘British’ company (38 per cent US owned against 39 per cent UK owned and boasting more US employees than British by the way) to help a wicked murderer be re-united with his wicked boss Colonel Gaddafi. What a very convenient distraction despite the denials of BP and the British, Scottish and Libyan governments. But who knows the truth? Certainly not me.
Not content with attempting to make a villain of BP over the Gulf oil spill in a vain attempt to deflect attention away from his own disastrous presidential performance, as I reported in June, Barak Obama has now attempted another spin trick worthy of even the ghastly Tony Blair and his hypocritical and morally bankrupt lieutenant Alistair Campbell.
America’s first mixed race President, when his politically motivated attacks on ‘British’ Petroleum failed to turn the tide of public disapproval of him, decided, instead of listening to the reasons for the disquiet, to launch another smokescreen by questioning whether perhaps BP had influenced the British and Scottish governments into releasing the convicted Lockerbie Bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.
You will recall that on 21 December 1988, Pan Am 103 exploded in mid air over Lockerbie in Scotland killing some 270 people in total, a high percentage of which were US citizens.
Eventually, al-Megrahi was convicted of this atrocity, despite protesting his innocence and with many feeling that the conviction was unsafe due to the amount of conflicting and dubious evidence. He was sentenced to serve life in a Scottish jail.
Then in 2009, he was released on humanitarian grounds due to the fact that Scottish doctors said that he had only a matter of weeks to live given the terminal nature of the cancer he was suffering from.
Many Americans, not least relatives of those slaughtered, were appalled – a feeling that became more intense when al-Megrahi was still alive a year later. This was not always an emotion shared by relatives of the British victims, some of whom seemed to have studied the case more closely and were far less convinced of his guilt.
Nevertheless, as al-Megrahi was convicted in a proper court of law, one can perhaps sympathise with those who thought that he should die in prison given the nature of his crime.
Now enter stage left America’s inept President Obama, who suggests that BP had enlisted Gordon Brown’s corrupt British government to offer the release of al-Megrahi as a sweetener to Colonel Gaddafi in order to land a 900-million-dollar deal with Libya.
Therefore, a wicked British government had colluded with a wicked ‘British’ company (38 per cent US owned against 39 per cent UK owned and boasting more US employees than British by the way) to help a wicked murderer be re-united with his wicked boss Colonel Gaddafi. What a very convenient distraction despite the denials of BP and the British, Scottish and Libyan governments. But who knows the truth? Certainly not me.
Hague snubs US inquiry into Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Sunday Times. It can be accessed online only by subscribers to the newspaper's website. The article reads in part:]
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.
The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.
While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)
The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.
“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”
[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]
Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.
"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."
The foreign secretary, William Hague, has banned government officials from co-operating with a US Senate team investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
He has told them not to liaise with the Americans despite a request from the US government for a meeting with investigators when they arrive in Britain this week.
The Foreign Office said the request had been rejected because of concerns about “extraterritoriality” — the convention that members of one government are not accountable to another — and also because the civil service code bars officials from discussing the policies of a previous administration.
While visiting Washington in July, David Cameron joined President Barack Obama in condemning the release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi a year ago. He asked Sir Gus O’Donnell, the cabinet secretary, to examine whether classified papers on the events leading up to it could be released. (...)
The investigating team of senators’ staff members had hoped that key figures with knowledge of the events leading up to Megrahi’s release would agree to meet them informally to discuss the case.
Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, has turned down their requests to meet his ministers while they are in Britain but has offered to make justice department officials available to discuss the case.
Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary responsible for Megrahi’s release, said they were not answerable to America for their decisions.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “We have had to decline this request given concerns over extraterritoriality and also on the basis of the civil service code. Officials are accountable through ministers to the British parliament.
“However, we are committed to being constructive. The foreign secretary has written in detail to the Senate committee, setting out the British government’s position, and will write again once the cabinet secretary’s review has concluded.”
[It appears that Richard Baker MSP, Labour Party Justice spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, is going to meet the US Senate staffer. A report from The Press Association news agency contains the following:]
Labour justice spokesman Richard Baker has revealed that he is to meet an official connected to the US Senate inquiry into the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Mr Baker said he will call for publication of the bomber's medical reports when he meets the representative of US Senator Robert Menendez in Edinburgh on Thursday.
The MSP said: "Kenny MacAskill and other SNP ministers took the decision to release (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al) Megrahi and the medical evidence that they relied upon has not been published.
"I will make it clear that to get to the truth of the matter the Senators should focus their attentions on that advice."
Saturday, 11 September 2010
Radio Four Megrahi programme
The topic for the edition of BBC Radio Four's The Report to be broadcast on Thursday, 16 September at 8pm is "the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi". I agreed to be interviewed for this programme on condition that it concerned itself not merely with the circumstances of his release but also with the circumstances of his conviction. This condition was accepted and I estimate that 95 per cent of the interview of more than one hour that I gave related to the investigation, trial and conviction, rather than the release. But it's all in the editing, of course.
Friday, 10 September 2010
US ambassador hits back at cardinal over Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
One of America's most senior diplomats last night issued hard-hitting criticisms of the Scottish Government and a senior Catholic cardinal when he spoke in Glasgow last night.
Louis Susman, US ambassador to the UK, strongly condemned justice secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, and made the pointed remark that America was "not a vengeful nation" in reference to recent comments made by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the leader of Scotland's Roman Catholics.
Speaking at a CBI dinner in Glasgow, Mr Susman said: "We have said repeatedly we respect the right of the Scottish Government to make the decision, but we felt that the heinous nature of the crime did not justify the release under any circumstances.
"We agree with Prime Minister Cameron who said that Megrahi should not have been shown compassion when he did not show any himself.
"The fact that Megrahi lives on as a free man, 13 months after his release, in Libya, in luxurious surroundings, only reinforces our conviction that he should have served his sentence in Scotland. America is not a vengeful nation as some have said."
His last remark was seen as a pointed response to statements from Cardinal O'Brien. Last month the cardinal criticised America's "culture of vengeance" and told US Senators they had no right to question the standards of Scotland's justice system over the release of the Lockerbie bomber. (...)
In his remarks, Cardinal O'Brien condemned the American justice system and spoke of a "conveyor belt of killing" in its use of the death penalty. (...)
He said the US senators seeking to question Scottish and British government ministers should instead "direct their gaze inwards".
The Cardinal also backed Mr Salmond's decision not to send his ministers to the US for a Senate hearing, saying that Scottish ministers are answerable to Scots and not to the US. He described the decision as "thoughtful and considered". (...)
MacAskill rejected Megrahi's application to be released under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement negotiated by the UK government and Libya.
It emerged subsequently that the Libyans had delayed signing an oil deal with BP in order to pressure Megrahi to be included in the agreement, which the then UK justice secretary Jack Straw subsequently agreed to.
The revelations prompted the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee to launch a hearing into the release.
Both MacAskill and Straw were asked to attend, but both declined on the grounds they did not answer to a foreign legislature. The senators have now declared they may visit Scotland later this year to speak to MacAskill and Straw here.
[The Herald's report of the ambassador's speech can be read here.
A letter from Ruth Marr in The Herald of Saturday, 11 September contains the following:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi must feel that he is encircled by vultures. The latest to complain that he has not met his three-month deadline is the American ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman., speaking at the CBI Scotland’s annual dinner.
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Help wanted for The Lockerbie Divide blog
[Caustic Logic's most recent post on his excellent blog The Lockerbie Divide reads in part:]
[I]t's been almost single-handedly that, over the last eight months, I've made this a valuable destination for those wanting to learn more about the case against Megrahi and Libya. Using tags (the cloud of different sized names and phrases on the right-hand sidebar) and the "search this blog" window, quite a bit of the relevant info, some unavailable anywhere else, can be located all at one site.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of information I haven't addressed, fully or at all. At one point I was creating blank posts to fill in later, but I wasn't getting back to them and stopped. And as things stand, I'll be having considerably less time to work on the site or do much other discussion in the next several months at least. (...)
However, I have noticed many new commentators appearing at The Lockerbie Case and elsewhere, in addition to the numerous informed commentators on both/all sides of the issue. I'd therefore like to repeat an earlier faint request for contributions and help. Are there any specific aspects or points of view that you're excited about or have done some research on? Encyclopedic collections of facts, opinions, theories, all are welcome for submission (especially the first). Ideally, I'm thinking of semi-scholarly, sourced essays, and I probably won't post anything that's patently absurd or useless in my estimate. ANY opposing viewpoint supporting Megrahi's guilt (within social norms, etc) that is submitted will be hosted for argument's sake, but I will own the comments. So keep it sharp, if possible.
If you see an existing post that you can add something to, fill in the gaps often labeled "forthcoming," drop me a line via a comment there or by e-mail. (...) Anyone interested in doing original research for a detailed post can ask me about sharing links and source material they may not have, and for tips on where to look for info.
[I]t's been almost single-handedly that, over the last eight months, I've made this a valuable destination for those wanting to learn more about the case against Megrahi and Libya. Using tags (the cloud of different sized names and phrases on the right-hand sidebar) and the "search this blog" window, quite a bit of the relevant info, some unavailable anywhere else, can be located all at one site.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of information I haven't addressed, fully or at all. At one point I was creating blank posts to fill in later, but I wasn't getting back to them and stopped. And as things stand, I'll be having considerably less time to work on the site or do much other discussion in the next several months at least. (...)
However, I have noticed many new commentators appearing at The Lockerbie Case and elsewhere, in addition to the numerous informed commentators on both/all sides of the issue. I'd therefore like to repeat an earlier faint request for contributions and help. Are there any specific aspects or points of view that you're excited about or have done some research on? Encyclopedic collections of facts, opinions, theories, all are welcome for submission (especially the first). Ideally, I'm thinking of semi-scholarly, sourced essays, and I probably won't post anything that's patently absurd or useless in my estimate. ANY opposing viewpoint supporting Megrahi's guilt (within social norms, etc) that is submitted will be hosted for argument's sake, but I will own the comments. So keep it sharp, if possible.
If you see an existing post that you can add something to, fill in the gaps often labeled "forthcoming," drop me a line via a comment there or by e-mail. (...) Anyone interested in doing original research for a detailed post can ask me about sharing links and source material they may not have, and for tips on where to look for info.
Monday, 6 September 2010
A Scottish Sunday afternoon
"I am a documentary film maker wrapping production on a feature length film of the Lockerbie disaster, which I have been shooting for the past three years. The focus of the film is the humanistic effects that have taken place since the bombing, with three families in the United States being the primary subjects. I have trailed them through the various anniversaries of the bombing, their children's birthdays, and was with them last year on this date when Megrahi was released, an event which was particularly devastating to them as most of the Americans believe he was guilty of the crime.
"As the people I've interviewed for this film have been primarily American, aside from a handful of people from Lockerbie itself, the interviews I have shot so far are leaning heavily towards the side that Megrahi is guilty. As an objective journalist and filmmaker, I feel I must include the voice of the opposition to counterbalance the views that have divided the people of the UK vs US. (...)
"I am writing to formally ask for an interview with you for this film. With your expertise and your prominence with regards to the case/trial I feel you are an invaluable voice in this story. Please consider this opportunity, and feel free to ask me any questions about me and my film. (...)
"You can rest assured the film itself will be held to the highest journalistic standards."
This is what the documentary maker wrote. The resulting filmed interview took place yesterday.
For more than an hour, all was unexceptional, the questioning covering my upbringing in Lockerbie, my recollections of the event itself, how I became involved in attempting to bring about a trial and my views about the trial itself and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. I covered at some length my concerns about the flimsiness of the evidence against him, concerns in many instances shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its 2007 report on Megrahi's conviction.
But then the entire tone of the proceedings changed. How could I hold myself out in the media as an expert when I had advised the Libyan government in relation to the Lockerbie case? The fact that I had never hidden this and it was in the public domain from the time that I first went public (in late 1997) with my January-1994 scheme for a non-jury trial in the Netherlands cut no ice with the interviewer. And if not all media outlets gave prominence to my contacts with the Libyan government, this was my fault rather than that of the journalists and media editorial staff concerned. How could I justify seeking to undermine the verdict of the Zeist court? The detailed account that I had given, and now attempted to give again, of the crucial instances in which the judges' conclusions were simply contrary to the evidence were swept aside, as were the concerns expressed by the SCCRC. After about half an hour of this, I brought the interview to an end and left the hotel room in which it had been held. This was precisely what the interviewer had been seeking to achieve. With hand-held camera running, I was followed through the hotel corridors with the interviewer ranting, amongst other things, "Do you sleep at night?"
I wonder what will happen to the first hour's recorded material? It contains lots of interesting stuff. But I doubt if it will ever see the light of day. The documentary maker had decided that what his film needed was a villain, and I was cast in the role. It will no doubt go down well in the United States and in certain Crown Office and police circles. It may also, for a time, serve to deflect attention from the terrible miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi. But the truth will ultimately prevail.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
"As the people I've interviewed for this film have been primarily American, aside from a handful of people from Lockerbie itself, the interviews I have shot so far are leaning heavily towards the side that Megrahi is guilty. As an objective journalist and filmmaker, I feel I must include the voice of the opposition to counterbalance the views that have divided the people of the UK vs US. (...)
"I am writing to formally ask for an interview with you for this film. With your expertise and your prominence with regards to the case/trial I feel you are an invaluable voice in this story. Please consider this opportunity, and feel free to ask me any questions about me and my film. (...)
"You can rest assured the film itself will be held to the highest journalistic standards."
This is what the documentary maker wrote. The resulting filmed interview took place yesterday.
For more than an hour, all was unexceptional, the questioning covering my upbringing in Lockerbie, my recollections of the event itself, how I became involved in attempting to bring about a trial and my views about the trial itself and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. I covered at some length my concerns about the flimsiness of the evidence against him, concerns in many instances shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its 2007 report on Megrahi's conviction.
But then the entire tone of the proceedings changed. How could I hold myself out in the media as an expert when I had advised the Libyan government in relation to the Lockerbie case? The fact that I had never hidden this and it was in the public domain from the time that I first went public (in late 1997) with my January-1994 scheme for a non-jury trial in the Netherlands cut no ice with the interviewer. And if not all media outlets gave prominence to my contacts with the Libyan government, this was my fault rather than that of the journalists and media editorial staff concerned. How could I justify seeking to undermine the verdict of the Zeist court? The detailed account that I had given, and now attempted to give again, of the crucial instances in which the judges' conclusions were simply contrary to the evidence were swept aside, as were the concerns expressed by the SCCRC. After about half an hour of this, I brought the interview to an end and left the hotel room in which it had been held. This was precisely what the interviewer had been seeking to achieve. With hand-held camera running, I was followed through the hotel corridors with the interviewer ranting, amongst other things, "Do you sleep at night?"
I wonder what will happen to the first hour's recorded material? It contains lots of interesting stuff. But I doubt if it will ever see the light of day. The documentary maker had decided that what his film needed was a villain, and I was cast in the role. It will no doubt go down well in the United States and in certain Crown Office and police circles. It may also, for a time, serve to deflect attention from the terrible miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi. But the truth will ultimately prevail.
Magna est veritas et praevalebit.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Megrahi's new book to reveal vital evidence he says will clear his name
[This is the headline over a report by Marcello Mega on page 44 of today's Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. The story does not (as yet) appear on the newspaper's website. The following excerpts have accordingly been typed out by me.]
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to publish a book containing sensational new evidence he claims will clear his name.
When ... Megrahi was found guilty of planting the bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, the most crucial evidence involved a tiny piece of electronic circuit board.
Prosecutors said it had been found 35 miles from the crash site and was part of a timing device used to detonate explosives hidden in a tape recorder in luggage on the plane.
Megrahi's book will make public the results of comprehensive tests carried out by an internationally acclaimed explosives expert which cast doubt on his conviction.
The experiments -- by Dr John Wyatt, the UN's European consultant on explosives -- suggest that the 4mm square fragment of circuit board could not possibly have survived the explosion. In conditions designed to replicate the 1988 bomb as closely as possible, Dr Wyatt carried out 20 controlled explosions.
Radio-cassette recorders containing Semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi's conviction were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the actual bomb.
The amount of Semtex used was 400g -- the amount estimated to have brought down Pan Am Flight 103.
When the Semtex in the experiments was detonated, all the circuit boards in the timing devices and the surrounding tape recorders were completely destroyed.
Last night, Dr Wyatt said his experiments proved beyond a doubt that the fragment of circuit board used to convict Megrahi could not have been part of a timing device. He claimed his research was absolutely conclusive: it simply could not have survived such close proximity to such a powerful explosion.
Dr Wyatt said: "Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
"The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. So where did the fragment come from?" (...)
In Dr Wyatt's tests, circuit boards were completely vaporised in all the explosions using 400g of Semtex. Circuit boards were also vaporised in tests using considerably less explosive.
Only when the amount of Semtex was reduced to 150g -- 37.5 per cent of the quantity used -- did any trace of the circuit board survive. Even then, the remains were so small they could only be viewed and identified with a microscope.
Megrahi's conviction rested on two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2 million for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the discovery of the fragment. (...)
The book will also cover forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosive residue.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that material judged the conviction unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, saying no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence.
Last night, Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University ... said: "I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because, interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, namely, that he should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court."
[I am grateful to Marcello Mega for sending me the full, unedited, text of his article in The Mail on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Dramatic revelations to be made in a book co-authored by the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will send shockwaves through the Scottish justice system.
The book will outline in detail explosives tests carried out by an independent expert proving that a 4mm sq fragment of circuit board that was at the very heart of the Libyan’s conviction could not have survived the Lockerbie bomb, made up of about 400g of semtex.
Dr John Wyatt, the United Nations’ European consultant on explosives, carried out a series of 20 controlled explosions within brick and corrugated iron constructions in a secluded part of the Kent countryside.
Dr Wyatt revealed last night that the experiment was designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions of the Lockerbie bomb.
Radio-cassette recorders, containing semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi’s conviction, were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the bomb.
The circuit board was completely vaporised in all tests until the amount of semtex was reduced considerably. Only when the scientists went as low as 150g, 37.5% of the quantity that downed Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988, did any trace of the circuit board survive, and it could only be viewed and identified through a microscope.
Dr Wyatt said: “We carried out the tests indoors specifically to make it easier to gather up all the residue of the explosions. Until we got down to 150g of semtex, nothing was left but dust.
“At 150g, we found one tiny fragment that had been part of the circuit board, and it had to be checked and identified through a microscope. Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.
“Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm sq fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400g of semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
“The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. I don’t think it could have happened. So where did the fragment come from?”
That uncomfortable question would have been at the heart of the second appeal against conviction by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, but he abandoned that appeal a year ago to speed up the process of his compassionate release as he battled prostate cancer.
Now, the detail of the tests, and the questions it raises, will be the corner-stone of his book, co-authored by the investigative journalist John Ashton, who latterly worked as an investigator on the defence team preparing Megrahi’s appeal.
The book, which may be published before the end of this year, will also outline in detail forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosives residue, meaning that it had never been near the seat of an explosion.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that additional and crucial material judged that the conviction was unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, the most damning of which -- especially given that three judges sat without a jury -- was that no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence heard.
Megrahi was convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe because of two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2m for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the remarkable discovery of the fragment, the only piece of forensic evidence that pointed to Libyan involvement.
Dr Wyatt’s tests, and the publicity they will receive through publication of Megrahi’s book, will reinforce suspicions long held that the fragment was planted to implicate Libya.
Dr Wyatt’s qualifications and integrity are beyond question, unlike the former head of the FBI lab Thomas Thurman, who identified the fragment. Thurman did not even have a science degree and has been barred from giving evidence in murder trials after his testimony in a huge case proved unreliable and was heavily biased to favour the Crown.
It was widely believed that Megrahi’s second appeal would expose deep flaws in the Scottish justice system and prove embarrassing for the Crown Office and for senior Scottish and US investigators.
At least one former police officer has made sworn statements to the defence implicating former colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic who he says were involved in planting and manipulating evidence to fit Libya and Megrahi.
The weakest elements of the case have been exposed repeatedly over the past nine years, including the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
Gauci was recorded admitting he was to be paid for his testimony, had been coached by Scottish detectives before giving evidence and had been given free holidays in Scotland arranged by his police handlers.
There has also been growing unease over the integrity of the fragment.
In a case with thousands of productions, it had already been remarked upon at Megrahi’s trial that the only production with a label that had been altered was the evidence bag containing the fragment.
In their written judgment, the three Scottish judges who sat without a jury said that the attempts of the police officer responsible to explain his actions were “at worst evasive and at best confusing”.
However, they concluded that there was no sinister reason either for the re-labelling or for the poor quality of the officer’s evidence, while offering little explanation of how they reached that conclusion.
In referring the case back in 2007, the SCCRC -- made up of lawyers and ex-police officers -- took pains to stress that although it believed the conviction might be unsafe, it had not concluded that evidence had been planted or manipulated.
But it has now emerged that although they were sent reports on Dr Wyatt’s tests, commissioners working on the case refused to consider them.
Legal experts believed a second appeal would certainly have seen Megrahi’s conviction quashed, but expected that it would be done on a technicality to avoid scrutiny of the controversial evidence, and especially how the fragment entered the chain of evidence.
Robert Black, retired professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the trial in a neutral country before a panel of judges, has grown weary of the media focus on Megrahi’s controversial release just over a year ago.
Originally from Lockerbie, Prof Black, one of Scotland’s most eminent QCs, has even tired of hearing about the fresh revelations in the case.
He said last night: “I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, that Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court.”
[The Scottish edition of the Sun for Monday, 6 September contains a brief report about the Wyatt findings. It can be read here.]
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to publish a book containing sensational new evidence he claims will clear his name.
When ... Megrahi was found guilty of planting the bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, the most crucial evidence involved a tiny piece of electronic circuit board.
Prosecutors said it had been found 35 miles from the crash site and was part of a timing device used to detonate explosives hidden in a tape recorder in luggage on the plane.
Megrahi's book will make public the results of comprehensive tests carried out by an internationally acclaimed explosives expert which cast doubt on his conviction.
The experiments -- by Dr John Wyatt, the UN's European consultant on explosives -- suggest that the 4mm square fragment of circuit board could not possibly have survived the explosion. In conditions designed to replicate the 1988 bomb as closely as possible, Dr Wyatt carried out 20 controlled explosions.
Radio-cassette recorders containing Semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi's conviction were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the actual bomb.
The amount of Semtex used was 400g -- the amount estimated to have brought down Pan Am Flight 103.
When the Semtex in the experiments was detonated, all the circuit boards in the timing devices and the surrounding tape recorders were completely destroyed.
Last night, Dr Wyatt said his experiments proved beyond a doubt that the fragment of circuit board used to convict Megrahi could not have been part of a timing device. He claimed his research was absolutely conclusive: it simply could not have survived such close proximity to such a powerful explosion.
Dr Wyatt said: "Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
"The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. So where did the fragment come from?" (...)
In Dr Wyatt's tests, circuit boards were completely vaporised in all the explosions using 400g of Semtex. Circuit boards were also vaporised in tests using considerably less explosive.
Only when the amount of Semtex was reduced to 150g -- 37.5 per cent of the quantity used -- did any trace of the circuit board survive. Even then, the remains were so small they could only be viewed and identified with a microscope.
Megrahi's conviction rested on two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2 million for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the discovery of the fragment. (...)
The book will also cover forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosive residue.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that material judged the conviction unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, saying no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence.
Last night, Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University ... said: "I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because, interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, namely, that he should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court."
[I am grateful to Marcello Mega for sending me the full, unedited, text of his article in The Mail on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Dramatic revelations to be made in a book co-authored by the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will send shockwaves through the Scottish justice system.
The book will outline in detail explosives tests carried out by an independent expert proving that a 4mm sq fragment of circuit board that was at the very heart of the Libyan’s conviction could not have survived the Lockerbie bomb, made up of about 400g of semtex.
Dr John Wyatt, the United Nations’ European consultant on explosives, carried out a series of 20 controlled explosions within brick and corrugated iron constructions in a secluded part of the Kent countryside.
Dr Wyatt revealed last night that the experiment was designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions of the Lockerbie bomb.
Radio-cassette recorders, containing semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi’s conviction, were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the bomb.
The circuit board was completely vaporised in all tests until the amount of semtex was reduced considerably. Only when the scientists went as low as 150g, 37.5% of the quantity that downed Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988, did any trace of the circuit board survive, and it could only be viewed and identified through a microscope.
Dr Wyatt said: “We carried out the tests indoors specifically to make it easier to gather up all the residue of the explosions. Until we got down to 150g of semtex, nothing was left but dust.
“At 150g, we found one tiny fragment that had been part of the circuit board, and it had to be checked and identified through a microscope. Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.
“Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm sq fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400g of semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
“The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. I don’t think it could have happened. So where did the fragment come from?”
That uncomfortable question would have been at the heart of the second appeal against conviction by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, but he abandoned that appeal a year ago to speed up the process of his compassionate release as he battled prostate cancer.
Now, the detail of the tests, and the questions it raises, will be the corner-stone of his book, co-authored by the investigative journalist John Ashton, who latterly worked as an investigator on the defence team preparing Megrahi’s appeal.
The book, which may be published before the end of this year, will also outline in detail forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosives residue, meaning that it had never been near the seat of an explosion.
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that additional and crucial material judged that the conviction was unsafe.
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, the most damning of which -- especially given that three judges sat without a jury -- was that no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence heard.
Megrahi was convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe because of two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2m for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the remarkable discovery of the fragment, the only piece of forensic evidence that pointed to Libyan involvement.
Dr Wyatt’s tests, and the publicity they will receive through publication of Megrahi’s book, will reinforce suspicions long held that the fragment was planted to implicate Libya.
Dr Wyatt’s qualifications and integrity are beyond question, unlike the former head of the FBI lab Thomas Thurman, who identified the fragment. Thurman did not even have a science degree and has been barred from giving evidence in murder trials after his testimony in a huge case proved unreliable and was heavily biased to favour the Crown.
It was widely believed that Megrahi’s second appeal would expose deep flaws in the Scottish justice system and prove embarrassing for the Crown Office and for senior Scottish and US investigators.
At least one former police officer has made sworn statements to the defence implicating former colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic who he says were involved in planting and manipulating evidence to fit Libya and Megrahi.
The weakest elements of the case have been exposed repeatedly over the past nine years, including the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
Gauci was recorded admitting he was to be paid for his testimony, had been coached by Scottish detectives before giving evidence and had been given free holidays in Scotland arranged by his police handlers.
There has also been growing unease over the integrity of the fragment.
In a case with thousands of productions, it had already been remarked upon at Megrahi’s trial that the only production with a label that had been altered was the evidence bag containing the fragment.
In their written judgment, the three Scottish judges who sat without a jury said that the attempts of the police officer responsible to explain his actions were “at worst evasive and at best confusing”.
However, they concluded that there was no sinister reason either for the re-labelling or for the poor quality of the officer’s evidence, while offering little explanation of how they reached that conclusion.
In referring the case back in 2007, the SCCRC -- made up of lawyers and ex-police officers -- took pains to stress that although it believed the conviction might be unsafe, it had not concluded that evidence had been planted or manipulated.
But it has now emerged that although they were sent reports on Dr Wyatt’s tests, commissioners working on the case refused to consider them.
Legal experts believed a second appeal would certainly have seen Megrahi’s conviction quashed, but expected that it would be done on a technicality to avoid scrutiny of the controversial evidence, and especially how the fragment entered the chain of evidence.
Robert Black, retired professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the trial in a neutral country before a panel of judges, has grown weary of the media focus on Megrahi’s controversial release just over a year ago.
Originally from Lockerbie, Prof Black, one of Scotland’s most eminent QCs, has even tired of hearing about the fresh revelations in the case.
He said last night: “I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, that Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court.”
[The Scottish edition of the Sun for Monday, 6 September contains a brief report about the Wyatt findings. It can be read here.]
“How Do I Plead? You Tell Me…”
This is the heading over a recent post on the Back Towards The Locus blog by bensix, an occasional commentator on my own blog. It is an entertaining dissection of some of the recent shoddy journalism on the Megrahi case. It can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)