[This is the title of a long article by Dr J U Cameron published yesterday on John Cameron's Blog. It reads in part:]
One of the UK’s foremost criminal lawyers, Michael Mansfield has long warned against over-reliance on forensic evidence to secure convictions. He said “Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake that anyone can make is to believe that its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading.” There is, in fact, a kind of “canteen culture” in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than investigators seeking the truth.
At first this did not seem to matter in the aftermath of the destruction Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. It was quickly established by air accident investigators that there had been an explosion in the forward cargo hold in the baggage container AVE 4041. Fragments of a Samsonite suitcase which appeared to have contained the bomb were recovered, together with parts of a Toshiba Bombeat radio cassette recorder in which the bomb had been concealed. There were also items of clothing which looked as if they had also been in the case. At this stage the forensic evidence appeared robust and no credible doubt has been raised in the years since the event that this was the method by which the plane was destroyed.
The police discovered that the baggage container AVE 4041 had been loaded with interline baggage at Heathrow. The baggage had been x-rayed by Sulkash Kamboj of Alert Security, an affiliate company of Pan Am. John Bedford, a loader-driver employed by Pan Am told police that he had placed a number of cases in the container before leaving for a tea break. When he returned he found an additional two cases had been added, one of which was a distinctive brown Samsonite case. Bedford said that Kamboj had told him he had added the two cases. When questioned by the police, Kamboj denied he had added the cases or told Bedford he had done so. This matter was only resolved at the trial when under cross examination Kamboj admitted that Bedford was telling the truth.
All the evidence at this stage pointed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine –General Command (PFLP-GC). Five weeks before Lockerbie, a PFLP-GC cell was apprehended in Germany. Haffez Dalkamoni, right-hand man to the group’s leader Ahmad Jibril, and the bomb-maker, Marwen Khreesat, were arrested while visiting electrical shops in Frankfurt. In the boot of Dalkamoni’s car was a Toshiba cassette recorder with Semtex moulded inside it, a simple time delay switch and a barometric switch. Under German police interrogation, Dalkamoni admitted he had supervised Khreesat when he built bombs into a Toshiba radio cassette player, two radio tuners and a TV monitor. He also admitted that Khreesat had built other bombs including a second Toshiba containing similar pressure switches but he claimed to have no knowledge of its whereabouts.
The involvement of the PFLP-GC was consistent with what was assumed at the time to be the motive for the Pan Am atrocity. In July 1988 Iran Air Flight 655, a passenger jet containing some 300 Iranian pilgrims, had been shot down over the Persian Gulf by the renegade US battlecruiser Vincennes. Not only did America refuse to apologize, the captain of the ship and his gunnery officer were decorated for their actions. This crass behaviour caused outrage within Iran and throughout the Middle East. Tehran Radio condemned the attack as an act of naked aggression and announced it would be avenged ‘in blood-splattered skies’.
Soon the US Air Force Command was issuing warnings to its civilian contractors: ‘We believe Iran will strike back in a tit for tat fashion with mass casualties.’ Later warnings were more specific: ‘We believe Europe is the likely target for a retaliatory attack due to the large concentration of Americans and the established terrorist infrastructures in place throughout Europe.’
Within weeks the CIA reported that Ahmad Jibril, the leader of the PFLP-GC had met government officials in Iran and offered his services. Interpol circulated warnings about the PFLP-GC bombs to all European airports. Heathrow Airport issued its own warning to security staff, stating that it was ‘imperative that when screening or searching radios, radio cassette players and other electrical equipment, staff remain extra vigilant’. After the arrest of the PFLP-GC cell Heathrow received more information, including photographs of the Toshiba bomb from the German authorities.
In the aftermath of Lockerbie, all the Toshiba cassette bombs seized by the Germans were tested and found to run for 30 minutes after they were set. The advantage of the barometric timer employed is that it is not activated until the plane is airborne so the bomb will not go off on the ground if the flight is delayed. Some seven or eight minutes will elapse as the aircraft gains height and the air pressure drops enough to activate a barometric timer set to go off 30 minutes later, i.e. 37 or 38 minutes after the flight took off. It was precisely 38 minutes after Pan Am Flight 103 took off from Heathrow on 21 December 1988 that it exploded over Lockerbie.
The clothing thought to have been in the suitcase with the bomb contained labels which allowed the items to be traced to a shop in Malta. A member of Dalkamoni’s cell, Abu Talb, who was then awaiting trial for separate offences in Sweden, was known to have visited Malta shortly before the atrocity. When first questioned the owner of the shop, Tony Gauci, described the purchaser of the clothes as a dark-skinned, 50 year old man over six feet in height – which fitted Abu Talb – and identified him from a photograph.
The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued a memo on September 24th, 1989 which stated, “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister. The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command leader, for a sum of $1m. $100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Muhammad Hussan Akhari for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.”
A DIA briefing in December 1989 entitled “Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation” confirmed the American belief that Iran was the state sponsor of the bombing. It claimed that the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of the Iran Air 655 airbus was the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation. It specifically discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. It stated: “Following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya in 1986, Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”
Then, in August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait thereby putting at risk the stability of the Saudi and Gulf sheikhdoms on which the West depended to preserve the status quo in the region. A sudden shift of alliances was necessary. If Iraq was to be confronted, then Iran had to be treated with kid gloves and the Syrian regime must be brought on board. At the beginning of 1991 Syrians joined Western troops in the attack on Saddam’s invading army and the increasingly isolated Colonel Gadaffi gradually became the chief suspect on the Lockerbie bombing.
As a result of the change in overall narrative and the fact that there had been absolutely no Libyan activity in London, interest in Heathrow as the scene of the bomb planting suddenly ceased. Now the Maltese connection became crucial. Heretofore it had simply been assumed the clothes were purchased at a Maltese tourist shop in preference to the more regulated shops of Frankfurt or London.
But there was a long standing connection between Malta and Libya which survived all the twists and turns of international diplomacy. In particular, it was one of the key conduits through which essential supplies could be transferred to Tripoli when Gaddafi’s behaviour had provoked yet another set of sanctions being imposed on his country.
The purchaser of the clothes in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta now magically morphed from a non-Libyan giant in late middle age to a youthful, 5’ 7” tall Libyan in his mid-thirties. His name, it appeared was Abdelbaset al Megrahi, head of security for Libyan Airlines. Educated in the USA and Britain, he was also director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. A cosmopolitan figure with a wide range of international contacts it was rumoured that he was used by Libya to import essentials during periods of sanctions. The claim that he had suddenly changed into a terrorist bomber was met with derision at home and abroad. The idea that he and his colleague Khalifah Fhimah, the station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport in Malta, had somehow secreted an unaccompanied suit case onto flight KM180 was thought to be absurd.
The Maltese police also protested that this was a most unlikely scenario. They had questioned the senior airport baggage loader who was adamant that he always double-counted his luggage: once when it was finally gathered and again as it was physically loaded onto the plane. This extremely reliable official was absolutely certain that there were no unaccompanied cases in the luggage that he counted on to the flight. In fact, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta had won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not!
The theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta as a piece of unaccompanied baggage and rattled around Europe before finding its way onto Pan Am 103 in London was widely ridiculed. The excellent screening at Frankfurt would have surely picked it up or, if not, it could well have been lost on the twilight zone of European baggage handling. But the greatest problem lay with the barometric trigger which would have caused flight KM180 to explode 38 minutes into the first leg to Frankfurt. This was the moment when the forensic scientists stepped up to the plate.
The two British scientists involved in the Lockerbie case were the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment’s Alan Feraday and Thomas Hayes. Charred material found some weeks after the bombing in woods near Lockerbie in mysterious circumstances had been sent for analysis to explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent. According to his later testimony Hayes teased out the cloth of one piece of the material, later identified as the neckband of a grey Slalom-brand shirt. Within it he found fragments of white paper, fragments of black plastic, a fragment of metal and a fragment of wire mesh—all subsequently found to be parts of a Toshiba RT-SF 16 and its manual. Hayes testified that he also found embedded a half-inch fragment of circuit board.
The next reference to this famous circuit board fragment occurred when Alan Feraday sent a Polaroid photograph of it to the police officer leading the investigation, Detective Chief Inspector William Williamson, asking for help in identification. In June 1990, Feraday and DCI Williamson visited FBI headquarters in Washington and together with Thomas Thurman, an FBI explosives expert, finally identified the fragment as being part of a timer circuit board.
Thurman’s involvement in identifying the fragment later proved highly controversial because in spite of his claim to be an “explosives forensic expert” he had no formal scientific qualifications whatsoever. He read politics at university and had somehow drifted into the FBI Labs. Worse was to follow when in 1997 the US Inspector-General Michael Bromwich, issued a report stating that in other trials Thurman had “circumvented procedures and protocols, testified to areas of expertise that he had no qualifications and fabricated evidence”. Numerous defendants had to be released and Thurman was fortunate not to be prosecuted himself. He was fired from the FBI labs and banned from acting as an expert witness in any other court case.
Thurman could not therefore give evidence at the Lockerbie trial and the Crown’s case would be further damaged when the testimony of his UK counterpart, Alan Feraday, was called into question. In three separate cases — where Feraday had been the expert witness — men against whom he gave evidence have had their convictions overturned. Like Thurman, Feraday was not actually a professional scientist and in 2005, after yet another successful appeal, the Chief Lord Justice said that “under no circumstances should Feraday be allowed to present himself as an expert witness in electronics”.
By the time of the trial the career of Thomas Hayes was also over because a British Parliamentary inquiry had found he had conspired to withhold evidence in the notorious trial of the Maguire Seven. Sir John May had said, “The whole scientific basis on which the prosecution was founded was in truth so vitiated that on this basis alone the conviction should be set aside.” Hayes jumped before he was pushed and by the time of the trial was working as a chiropodist.
As the argument for a Maltese connection and Libyan involvement progressed the tiny fragment of circuit board became increasingly important. Thurman now “indentified” it as part of a batch made by the Swiss manufacturer Mebo for the Libyan military. This was not the simple design thought to have been used in the Pan Am 103 bombing but a complex type of long timer. Edwin Bollier later revealed that he declined an offer of $4 million by the FBI to testify that the fragment was indeed part of the Mebo MST-13 timer. Fortunately one of his employees, Ulrich Lumpert, was prevailed upon to do so at the trial though later, in a sworn affidavit, he would admit he had lied. The other co-owner of Mebo, Erwin Meister, confirmed that MST–13 timers had been sold to Libya and helpfully identified Megrahi as a “former business contact”.
All the ducks were finally in a line and the Anglo-American authorities indicted the two Libyan suspects in November 1991. Gaddafi was then ordered to extradite them for trial in either the United Kingdom or the United States. Since no bilateral extradition treaty was in force between any of the three countries, he refused to hand the men over but did offer to detain them for trial in Libya, as long as all the incriminating evidence was provided. The offer was unacceptable to the US and UK, and there was an impasse for the next three years.
In November 1994, President Nelson Mandela offered South Africaas a neutral venue for the trial but this was rejected by John Major. A further three years elapsed until Mandela’s offer was repeated to Major’s successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997 and again at the 1997 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997. At the latter meeting, Mandela warned that “no one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge” in the Lockerbie case.
A compromise solution was eventually engineered by the legal academic Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University of a trial in the Netherlands governed by Scots law. Since this was in accordance with the New Labour government’s promotion of an “ethical” foreign policy, it was given political impetus by the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook. A special High Court of Justiciary was set up in a disused United States Air Force base called Camp Zeist in Utrecht.
In recent years no forensic-based case has caused greater concern than the Lockerbie trial and the prosecution has been widely accused of using the tactics of disinformation. The lead prosecutor was the highly controversial Lord Advocate, Colin (later Baron) Boyd who three years before had prosecuted DC McKie in another forensic disaster. The policewoman denied an accusation by Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) fingerprint officers that she left her thumb print at a murder scene in January 1997. She was arrested in March 1998, charged with perjury but at her trial in May 1999 the SCRO fingerprint evidence was rejected out of hand and she was acquitted.
A senior Scottish police officer, James Mackay QPM, was appointed by the Crown Office to investigate the matter and he submitted his report to Boyd in October 2000. It found that the actions of the SCRO personnel amounted to 'collective manipulation and collusion' and four of them were immediately suspended by the SCRO. With the Lockerbie trial in full swing Boyd was obviously reluctant to prosecute the officers involved and to great public indignation he allowed them to be reinstated. It would clearly have damaged his fragile case in the Lockerbie trial to have four of Scotland’s forensic scientists prosecuted for covering up acts of criminality. The finger-print scandal was only resolved in 2006 when the policewoman was awarded £750,000 compensation and Boyd was rightly forced to resign as Lord Advocate.
There were profound inconsistencies in much of the evidence presented to the trial. For instance, the entry of the discovery of the timer fragment was recorded at widely different times by UK and German investigators. The German police files indicate that fragments of the bomb timer were found on the shirt in January 1990. So the shirt collar could hardly have been examined nor the items of evidence extracted on 12 May 1989 as was claimed by Hayes at the trial. German documents also contain photographs showing a piece of the shirt with most of the breast pocket undamaged but the images presented to the trial were different.
It is also disconcerting that an additional page was inserted into the evidence log detailing the discovery of the Slalom shirt with particles of the bomb timer on it. The record of the discovery was inserted into a loose-leaf folder with the five subsequent pages re-numbered by hand – a procedure for which the scientist could offer no explanation at the trial. The prosecution’s evidence looked at times like a co-coordinated effort to mislead the court. Yet the Judges helpfully concluded that the compromised evidence log did not matter because “each item that was examined had the date of examination incorporated into the notes.”
During the trial, MeBo engineer Ulrich Lumpert – whose evidence was crucial in connecting the famous fragment to the Libyan batch – caused consternation by adding that the fragment on display belonged to a timer that had never been connected to a relay, ie had not triggered a bomb. This claim could not be countered by the prosecution because Hayes had inexplicably not thought it necessary to test the tiny timer fragment for explosive residue. However, given their conduct of the trial it came as no surprise that the three Scottish judges were untroubled by what should have been a disaster for the prosecution.
The lead judge was the veteran Lord Sutherland accompanied by an inveterate tribunal chairman, Lord Coulsfield, and the sentencing and parole expert Lord MacLean. They admitted the uncertainties in the testimony and the dangers inherent in “selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which do not fit”. They also admitted it was possible they were “reading into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern and conclusion which was not really justified” but ploughed on regardless.
In the end, the judges accepted that the absence of a credible explanation of how the suitcase was placed into the system at Luqa airport was “a major difficulty for the Crown case”. However they still managed to convince themselves that this was indeed what had happened. “When the evidence regarding the clothing, the purchaser and the timer is taken with the evidence that an unaccompanied bag was taken from KM180 to PA103A, the inference that that was the primary suitcase becomes, in our view, irresistible.” This statement was met with derision in Scotland and rightly dismissed as “inference piled upon inference”.
The judges further accepted that the PFLP-GC were also engaged in terrorist activities during the same period but found “no evidence from which we could infer that they were involved in this particular act of terrorism, and the evidence relating to their activities does not create a reasonable doubt in our minds about the Libyan origin of this crime.”
If most observers found this a very odd way of looking at the evidence, the final decisions of the judges provoked utter consternation. It appeared beyond any shadow of a doubt that the two accused were either both guilty or both not guilty but the Law Lords managed to find clear blue water between them. The judges were unanimous in finding the second accused, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, not guilty of the murder charge. He was freed and he returned to Libya on 1 February 2001.
As for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi the judges said: “There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment.” Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should serve at least 20 years before being eligible for parole.
Huge doubts remain about the prosecution’s case and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in 2007 found prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice. It is clear from their report that the unreliability of the prosecution’s key witness Tony Gauci was one of the main reasons for the referral of Megrahi’s case back to the Appeal Court. Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police during which he gave a series of inconclusive statements and there was evidence that leading questions had been put to him. Gauci was clearly not the “full shilling” as Lord Fraser, Scotland’s senior law officer during the investigation, had admitted. And yet he was not entirely stupid. The Americans paid him $2 million for his revised identification and he now resides in comfortable obscurity in Malta.
The review commission also discovered that the prosecution failed to disclose a document from a foreign power which confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the bomb timer was supplied to countries other than Libya. This document, passed to the commission by the foreign power in question, contained considerable detail about the method used to conceal the bomb and linked it to the PFLP-GC, the first suspects in the investigation. Moreover, the Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi, who provided intelligence for the Germans, had already told the prosecutors in 1996 that the bombing been ordered by Tehran, not Tripoli.
Scientists generally recommend selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. Known as Occam’s razor, we use it to cut out crazy, complicated constructions and to keep theories grounded in the laws of science. The Maltese evidence linking Megrahi to the atrocity is so fragile, so complex and so full of unsupported assumptions it depends almost totally upon the integrity of the forensic scientists. It is therefore unfortunate that it would be difficult to find three more disreputable practioners than Thurman, Hayes and Feraday. It should be a matter of deep concern that Megrahi is the only man convicted on the evidence of these three individuals whose conviction was not reversed on appeal.
There is also no credible evidence that the clothes from Tony Gauci’s shop found among the Lockerbie wreckage were really bought on the day stated in the trial. The sale seemed much more likely to have happened on a day when Abu Talb was on Malta and Megrahi definitely was not. It is also known that when the Swedish police arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they found some of the same batch of clothing in his flat in Uppsala. No explanation for that was forthcoming at the trial.
Finally, the behaviour of the chief prosecutor Colin Boyd, both in concealing the nefarious activity of his forensic scientists and withholding essential evidence from the defence, is utterly reprehensible. Together with lack of moral fiber shown by Lord Cullen and the Court of Criminal Appeal [at Megrahi's first appeal] it has left a permanent stain on the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Tony Kelly v Alex Salmond?
A leading human-rights lawyer is considering suing Alex Salmond, claiming that the First Minister has undermined his professional integrity.
Tony Kelly sought legal advice after he was criticised by Mr Salmond in a magazine interview in which the SNP leader claimed that the lawyer believed that the judicial system was there to "make sure" he could make an "incredibly comfortable living". (...)
Prof Kelly, a visiting professor at Strathclyde University, said he was "sad" that the First Minister had called into question his "professional integrity" and described Mr Salmond's comments as a "personal slur".
He added: "For a politician to attack me for the work that I do and to mistake so seriously my motivation cannot be left unremarked upon.
"With regret, I have had to take legal advice and following upon that, given the nature of attacks upon me, I have decided to formalise my position."
The Scotsman understands that Prof Kelly is waiting to see what response he receives from Mr Salmond before deciding how far to take his legal action. (...)
Referring to compensation paid out to prisoners, Mr Salmond suggested that Prof Kelly "believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999".
The interview [in Holyrood magazine] also saw Mr Salmond make an unprecedented personal attack on Lord Hope of Craighead, one of two Scottish judges who sit on the UK Supreme Court, arguing that his rulings were allowing the "vilest people on the planet" to be compensated by the taxpayer. (...)
Tony Kelly's most famous client was undoubtedly Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent who was freed by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill despite being convicted of the Lockerbie [bombing].
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. A similar report in The Herald contains the following:]
The First Minister told Holyrood magazine: “The judicial system does not exist to serve Professor Kelly, it exists to serve the people and any judicial system which allows that to happen would fall into disrepute, and what’s more, it costs lives because if you take £100 million out of the justice budget you cost lives; less police, less courts, less effective justice and incidentally, less Legal Aid and it is an inevitable consequence of that sort of thing.”
Prof Kelly, who represented the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, initially said he was “upset” at the remarks, claiming they were “wholly without foundation”.
But he raised the stakes last night when he announced he had taken the first steps towards suing Mr Salmond through the English courts, where the legal system allows the use of controversial conditional fee arrangements in defamation cases.
He added: “I am sad that the First Minister has called into question my professional integrity.
“I act for the most maligned in our society and in so doing fully expect that such a role is disliked and at times misunderstood by others.
“However, for a politician to attack me for the work that I do – and to mistake so seriously my motivation – cannot be left unremarked upon.”
Prof Kelly continued: “Human rights for those imprisoned are not popular. They tell us some things that we do not like to hear – the courts have repeatedly told the Government that it has breached human rights – including some of the most important articles on the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It is a matter of regret that the First Minister appears to lay blame at the door of the law, the judges, the courts and now, finally, the lawyers for taking them forward.
“Mr Salmond, in directing his comments in my direction, fails once again to deal with the issues of principle involved in the matters that I take forward on behalf of clients.
“The continued violation of human rights by the Government will, I hope, still be able to be challenged, or – as with his Justice Secretary’s comments about the Supreme Court – is this Mr Salmond telling me that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’?”
Tony Kelly sought legal advice after he was criticised by Mr Salmond in a magazine interview in which the SNP leader claimed that the lawyer believed that the judicial system was there to "make sure" he could make an "incredibly comfortable living". (...)
Prof Kelly, a visiting professor at Strathclyde University, said he was "sad" that the First Minister had called into question his "professional integrity" and described Mr Salmond's comments as a "personal slur".
He added: "For a politician to attack me for the work that I do and to mistake so seriously my motivation cannot be left unremarked upon.
"With regret, I have had to take legal advice and following upon that, given the nature of attacks upon me, I have decided to formalise my position."
The Scotsman understands that Prof Kelly is waiting to see what response he receives from Mr Salmond before deciding how far to take his legal action. (...)
Referring to compensation paid out to prisoners, Mr Salmond suggested that Prof Kelly "believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999".
The interview [in Holyrood magazine] also saw Mr Salmond make an unprecedented personal attack on Lord Hope of Craighead, one of two Scottish judges who sit on the UK Supreme Court, arguing that his rulings were allowing the "vilest people on the planet" to be compensated by the taxpayer. (...)
Tony Kelly's most famous client was undoubtedly Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent who was freed by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill despite being convicted of the Lockerbie [bombing].
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. A similar report in The Herald contains the following:]
The First Minister told Holyrood magazine: “The judicial system does not exist to serve Professor Kelly, it exists to serve the people and any judicial system which allows that to happen would fall into disrepute, and what’s more, it costs lives because if you take £100 million out of the justice budget you cost lives; less police, less courts, less effective justice and incidentally, less Legal Aid and it is an inevitable consequence of that sort of thing.”
Prof Kelly, who represented the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, initially said he was “upset” at the remarks, claiming they were “wholly without foundation”.
But he raised the stakes last night when he announced he had taken the first steps towards suing Mr Salmond through the English courts, where the legal system allows the use of controversial conditional fee arrangements in defamation cases.
He added: “I am sad that the First Minister has called into question my professional integrity.
“I act for the most maligned in our society and in so doing fully expect that such a role is disliked and at times misunderstood by others.
“However, for a politician to attack me for the work that I do – and to mistake so seriously my motivation – cannot be left unremarked upon.”
Prof Kelly continued: “Human rights for those imprisoned are not popular. They tell us some things that we do not like to hear – the courts have repeatedly told the Government that it has breached human rights – including some of the most important articles on the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It is a matter of regret that the First Minister appears to lay blame at the door of the law, the judges, the courts and now, finally, the lawyers for taking them forward.
“Mr Salmond, in directing his comments in my direction, fails once again to deal with the issues of principle involved in the matters that I take forward on behalf of clients.
“The continued violation of human rights by the Government will, I hope, still be able to be challenged, or – as with his Justice Secretary’s comments about the Supreme Court – is this Mr Salmond telling me that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’?”
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
The botched defection of Moussa Koussa
[What follows is from an article by David Ignatius published today on the Washington Post website.]
The botched defection several months ago of Musa Kusa, Libya’s former foreign minister, illustrates the uncertain strategy that has plagued the NATO campaign against Col. Moammar Gaddafi. But even so, the Gaddafi regime is feeling enough pressure to send an emissary to Washington this week to explore a possible negotiated settlement.
Kusa, a prominent member of Gaddafi’s inner circle, fled to Britain on March 30. His departure was initially touted as a major blow to the Libyan regime. But new details suggest it was an ill-planned rush job that has backfired. Kusa left Britain in mid-April and is now under wraps in Doha, Qatar. (...)
The Libya standoff is prompting the new interest in a political settlement. Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, sent an emissary who will meet this week with a senior representative of the Obama administration. The message is that Gaddafi will give up power and retreat into the desert, while technocrats in his regime work with the TNC to form a transitional government. Senussi, widely feared in Libya, would apparently also withdraw from power. The US response couldn’t be learned.
The Kusa defection is a classic case of covert confusion. The Libyan official had originally planned to defect to France. A French intelligence officer is said to have contacted him on March 10 during a meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A French intelligence official met him again on March 29 at the Royal Garden Hotel in Djerba, Tunisia, and pitched him about defecting, promising residency, financial help and legal immunity.
The French plan faltered the next morning after Paris demanded that, as part of the deal, Kusa appear publicly with President Nicolas Sarkozy when he arrived in Paris and denounce Gaddafi. Kusa refused, and initiated frantic contacts with MI6 representatives in London about fleeing there. The British first asked for three days to work out details, but when Kusa said he had to leave immediately, MI6 hammered out the basics in several hours, and the Libyan flew to Farnborough Airport, southwest of London.
Kusa’s escape to Britain got off to a bad start. MI6 officers met him at the airport, but his visa paperwork wasn’t ready for several hours. The British weren’t demanding that Kusa publicly renounce Gaddafi, but they weren’t offering him immunity from prosecution, either, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and 1984 shooting of a British policewoman. His debriefing at a safe house on the southern coast was rocky, in part because of the media frenzy about his defection — with Kusa reading tabloid headlines such as the Daily Mail’s description of him as Gaddafi’s “Fingernail-Puller-in-Chief.”
When Kusa’s passport was returned to him in mid-April, he promptly left for Qatar, nominally to attend a meeting of the “contact group” opposing Libya. He hasn’t left Doha since. The defection mishaps have been a “laughingstock” back in Libya and undermined hopes of other recruitments, according to one intelligence source.
The botched defection several months ago of Musa Kusa, Libya’s former foreign minister, illustrates the uncertain strategy that has plagued the NATO campaign against Col. Moammar Gaddafi. But even so, the Gaddafi regime is feeling enough pressure to send an emissary to Washington this week to explore a possible negotiated settlement.
Kusa, a prominent member of Gaddafi’s inner circle, fled to Britain on March 30. His departure was initially touted as a major blow to the Libyan regime. But new details suggest it was an ill-planned rush job that has backfired. Kusa left Britain in mid-April and is now under wraps in Doha, Qatar. (...)
The Libya standoff is prompting the new interest in a political settlement. Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, sent an emissary who will meet this week with a senior representative of the Obama administration. The message is that Gaddafi will give up power and retreat into the desert, while technocrats in his regime work with the TNC to form a transitional government. Senussi, widely feared in Libya, would apparently also withdraw from power. The US response couldn’t be learned.
The Kusa defection is a classic case of covert confusion. The Libyan official had originally planned to defect to France. A French intelligence officer is said to have contacted him on March 10 during a meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A French intelligence official met him again on March 29 at the Royal Garden Hotel in Djerba, Tunisia, and pitched him about defecting, promising residency, financial help and legal immunity.
The French plan faltered the next morning after Paris demanded that, as part of the deal, Kusa appear publicly with President Nicolas Sarkozy when he arrived in Paris and denounce Gaddafi. Kusa refused, and initiated frantic contacts with MI6 representatives in London about fleeing there. The British first asked for three days to work out details, but when Kusa said he had to leave immediately, MI6 hammered out the basics in several hours, and the Libyan flew to Farnborough Airport, southwest of London.
Kusa’s escape to Britain got off to a bad start. MI6 officers met him at the airport, but his visa paperwork wasn’t ready for several hours. The British weren’t demanding that Kusa publicly renounce Gaddafi, but they weren’t offering him immunity from prosecution, either, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and 1984 shooting of a British policewoman. His debriefing at a safe house on the southern coast was rocky, in part because of the media frenzy about his defection — with Kusa reading tabloid headlines such as the Daily Mail’s description of him as Gaddafi’s “Fingernail-Puller-in-Chief.”
When Kusa’s passport was returned to him in mid-April, he promptly left for Qatar, nominally to attend a meeting of the “contact group” opposing Libya. He hasn’t left Doha since. The defection mishaps have been a “laughingstock” back in Libya and undermined hopes of other recruitments, according to one intelligence source.
Why Mrs Angiolini did not deserve a damehood
[This is the headline over an article published today on the Scottish Review website by the editor, Kenneth Roy. It reads in part:]
Although it is tempting to dismiss the honours list as the ultimate exercise of human vanity – tempting because it so obviously is – the disposition of gongs at the top of the school tells us a great deal of interest about prevailing values and trends. (...)
D is for damehood. A d was awarded last weekend to the recently retired lord advocate Elish Angiolini for her 'services to the administration of justice in Scotland'. The constituency which this appointment is likely to offend includes many with a particular interest in the administration of justice in Scotland (...)
Mrs Angiolini appeals to the media because of her impeccable roots and her common touch. She is the sort of law officer who makes a great fuss of saying that some criminals should be locked up for life. The prosecution of the Sheridans – Tommy going down, Gail saved from Cornton Vale at the last minute – probably did her no harm, either. But it was her handling of the Megrahi case which earned her the greatest respect from the popular press and, perhaps, the public at large.
Her refusal to admit the possibility that a miscarriage of justice had occurred – even as the evidence piled up that an innocent man might have been sent to Greenock prison – confirmed for her media fans the stereotype of the don't-mess-with-me daughter of a Govan coal merchant, who had fought her way to the top and wasn't standing for any nonsense; far less any nuance.
In overlooked truth, it was a debacle on a grander scale than the World's End. It was epic. For one reason or another, important evidence helpful to Megrahi was not available at the trial, just as important evidence helpful to Nat Fraser was not produced at his. The appeal process dragged on, so tortuously slowly that, inevitably, suspicions were aroused that the Crown Office was employing those well-known techniques of any establishment in a tight spot, obfuscation and delaying tactics.
But again Elish Angiolini walked away with barely a mark. If anyone took the flak for the Megrahi fiasco it was the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, whose release of the 'Lockerbie bomber' in August 2009 provoked howls of outrage (though not from this magazine). The Crown Office, meanwhile, having dragged its heels for so long, was able to blame Megrahi for abandoning a second appeal. Perfect.
Although it is tempting to dismiss the honours list as the ultimate exercise of human vanity – tempting because it so obviously is – the disposition of gongs at the top of the school tells us a great deal of interest about prevailing values and trends. (...)
D is for damehood. A d was awarded last weekend to the recently retired lord advocate Elish Angiolini for her 'services to the administration of justice in Scotland'. The constituency which this appointment is likely to offend includes many with a particular interest in the administration of justice in Scotland (...)
Mrs Angiolini appeals to the media because of her impeccable roots and her common touch. She is the sort of law officer who makes a great fuss of saying that some criminals should be locked up for life. The prosecution of the Sheridans – Tommy going down, Gail saved from Cornton Vale at the last minute – probably did her no harm, either. But it was her handling of the Megrahi case which earned her the greatest respect from the popular press and, perhaps, the public at large.
Her refusal to admit the possibility that a miscarriage of justice had occurred – even as the evidence piled up that an innocent man might have been sent to Greenock prison – confirmed for her media fans the stereotype of the don't-mess-with-me daughter of a Govan coal merchant, who had fought her way to the top and wasn't standing for any nonsense; far less any nuance.
In overlooked truth, it was a debacle on a grander scale than the World's End. It was epic. For one reason or another, important evidence helpful to Megrahi was not available at the trial, just as important evidence helpful to Nat Fraser was not produced at his. The appeal process dragged on, so tortuously slowly that, inevitably, suspicions were aroused that the Crown Office was employing those well-known techniques of any establishment in a tight spot, obfuscation and delaying tactics.
But again Elish Angiolini walked away with barely a mark. If anyone took the flak for the Megrahi fiasco it was the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, whose release of the 'Lockerbie bomber' in August 2009 provoked howls of outrage (though not from this magazine). The Crown Office, meanwhile, having dragged its heels for so long, was able to blame Megrahi for abandoning a second appeal. Perfect.
Doubts over new Lockerbie trial
[This is the headline over a brief report in today's edition of The Independent. It reads as follows:]
Experts cast doubt on claims yesterday that the Libyan airline employee cleared of the Lockerbie bombing could stand trial under double jeopardy laws.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was found not guilty of assisting his friend and colleague Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in planting the bomb on board Pan AM flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives.
Families of those who died had said they hoped that a new prosecution could shine fresh light on the case following the original trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
But Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the legal process which led to the conviction of Megrahi, said it was highly unlikely that a new unit set up to examine unsolved cases under Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, would go ahead with a prosecution.
[Two interesting blog posts have emerged following the Aljazeera documentary (which can be watched on You Tube here). The first, Al Jazeera on Al Megrahi..., is on bensix's Back towards the locus and the second, Two secondary suitcases?, on Caustic Logic's The Lockerbie divide.
I am delighted to see that my second home, South Africa, has now notched up 1000 unique visitors on Flag Counter. Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika!]
Experts cast doubt on claims yesterday that the Libyan airline employee cleared of the Lockerbie bombing could stand trial under double jeopardy laws.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was found not guilty of assisting his friend and colleague Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in planting the bomb on board Pan AM flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives.
Families of those who died had said they hoped that a new prosecution could shine fresh light on the case following the original trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
But Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the legal process which led to the conviction of Megrahi, said it was highly unlikely that a new unit set up to examine unsolved cases under Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, would go ahead with a prosecution.
[Two interesting blog posts have emerged following the Aljazeera documentary (which can be watched on You Tube here). The first, Al Jazeera on Al Megrahi..., is on bensix's Back towards the locus and the second, Two secondary suitcases?, on Caustic Logic's The Lockerbie divide.
I am delighted to see that my second home, South Africa, has now notched up 1000 unique visitors on Flag Counter. Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika!]
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Libyan cleared over Lockerbie may be retried under double jeopardy
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Families of Lockerbie bombing victims hope an attempt by prosecutors to put Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's co- accused on trial again will shed new light on the atrocity.
The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double-jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, 55, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was acquitted of 270 counts of murder in 2001 after the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Victims' families are split on whether he or Megrahi, 59, who was convicted but released in 2009 on compassionate grounds, were behind the terror plot, but all want to see further investigations.
Jean Berkley, 80, from Northumberland, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son, Alistair, 29, in the bombing, said: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.
"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in.
"Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty.
"However, we're glad to see anything that keeps Lockerbie in the public eye. There are too many questions that remain. Our aim is to get more of the truth."
The Rev John Mosey, from Cumbria, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah. However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here."
Susan Cohen, 73, from New Jersey in the United States, whose daughter Theo, 20, died in the attack, is convinced of Megrahi's guilt and would welcome a new prosecution. She said: "I think that's fine if they can do it and have the evidence to do it, although I can't say I have much faith in the Scottish legal system after Megrahi was released.
"If you look at Wikileaks, for example, there's no sign that Libya did not do it - that Megrahi was framed."
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, who was promoted to the role of Scotland's chief prosecutor after last month's elections, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at failed prosecutions. (...)
However, Fhimah is the unit's top priority.
Mr Mulholland has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, and is keen to speak to former Libyan justice minister Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, who has claimed to have evidence linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.
But Mrs Cohen said she hoped Gaddafi would be killed, rather than face trial.
"As far as I'm concerned, any prosecution of Gaddafi would go before the international court," she said. "That's very slow. My preferred solution is that Gaddafi is killed - he is dangerous, he will kill again. He is the worst sort of tyrant and terrorist."
A Crown Office spokesman said: "As the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 remains live, and in order to preserve the integrity of that investigation, it would not be appropriate at this time to offer any further comment or the detail of ongoing inquiries.
"The Solicitor General, Lesley Thomson, has been asked by the Lord Advocate to review and prioritise cases which may be prosecuted anew under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. It is too early to say which cases would be considered."
[There will be no re-trial of Lamin Fhimah or any trial of Colonel Gaddafi for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The Crown Office is perfectly well aware that the evidence simply does not exist to make a conviction a realistic prospect; and that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist was a travesty perpetrated by a credulous court which has long since been exposed, by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst many others.
A news item on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm referring to The Scotsman report and my comments in the foregoing paragraph can be read here.
For the next six days, which include the South African Youth Day public holiday, Gannaga Lodge must take priority over servicing of this blog.]
Families of Lockerbie bombing victims hope an attempt by prosecutors to put Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's co- accused on trial again will shed new light on the atrocity.
The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double-jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, 55, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was acquitted of 270 counts of murder in 2001 after the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Victims' families are split on whether he or Megrahi, 59, who was convicted but released in 2009 on compassionate grounds, were behind the terror plot, but all want to see further investigations.
Jean Berkley, 80, from Northumberland, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son, Alistair, 29, in the bombing, said: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.
"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in.
"Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty.
"However, we're glad to see anything that keeps Lockerbie in the public eye. There are too many questions that remain. Our aim is to get more of the truth."
The Rev John Mosey, from Cumbria, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah. However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here."
Susan Cohen, 73, from New Jersey in the United States, whose daughter Theo, 20, died in the attack, is convinced of Megrahi's guilt and would welcome a new prosecution. She said: "I think that's fine if they can do it and have the evidence to do it, although I can't say I have much faith in the Scottish legal system after Megrahi was released.
"If you look at Wikileaks, for example, there's no sign that Libya did not do it - that Megrahi was framed."
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, who was promoted to the role of Scotland's chief prosecutor after last month's elections, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at failed prosecutions. (...)
However, Fhimah is the unit's top priority.
Mr Mulholland has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, and is keen to speak to former Libyan justice minister Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, who has claimed to have evidence linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.
But Mrs Cohen said she hoped Gaddafi would be killed, rather than face trial.
"As far as I'm concerned, any prosecution of Gaddafi would go before the international court," she said. "That's very slow. My preferred solution is that Gaddafi is killed - he is dangerous, he will kill again. He is the worst sort of tyrant and terrorist."
A Crown Office spokesman said: "As the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 remains live, and in order to preserve the integrity of that investigation, it would not be appropriate at this time to offer any further comment or the detail of ongoing inquiries.
"The Solicitor General, Lesley Thomson, has been asked by the Lord Advocate to review and prioritise cases which may be prosecuted anew under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. It is too early to say which cases would be considered."
[There will be no re-trial of Lamin Fhimah or any trial of Colonel Gaddafi for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The Crown Office is perfectly well aware that the evidence simply does not exist to make a conviction a realistic prospect; and that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist was a travesty perpetrated by a credulous court which has long since been exposed, by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst many others.
A news item on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm referring to The Scotsman report and my comments in the foregoing paragraph can be read here.
For the next six days, which include the South African Youth Day public holiday, Gannaga Lodge must take priority over servicing of this blog.]
Monday, 13 June 2011
Bribery at the heart of Megrahi's Lockerbie conviction?
[This is the headline over an item published today on Jon Snow's blog on the Channel 4 News website. It reads as follows:]
While Libya continues to burn, an eerie silence has descended over the British media’s interest in reopening the uncertainties surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. The occasional defecting Libyan minister has pretended to hold previously untold secrets, but nothing has come of them.
It was left to Al Jazeera English to try to lance the boil last Thursday when the channel broadcast an explosive documentary on the subject. The programme makers had gained access to the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the case.
Even more importantly, they managed to see the notebooks and diaries of the Scottish and American investigators written at the time. These were also in the possession of the Review Commission.
In short, the diaries make a blistering allegation – that the central Maltese witness whose testimony was key to convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – had been bribed. The diaries record the apparent “offer of inducements made to Tony Gauci”, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified clothes that were found in the suitcase that carried the bomb on the plane, as having been bought at his shop by al-Megrahi.
Tony Gauci’s brother, Paul, it is claimed, in the same diaries as having “a clear desire to gain financial benefit”. The Review Commissions’ own report states that after the trial Tony Gauci was paid $2 million, and that brother Paul got $1 million reward money.
If true, these would be completely dynamite revelations. Of course, they would have come out in the appeal that Megrahi’s release prevented happening. It is inconceivable that this Scottish Review Commission’s report would not have surfaced at such an appeal. Does this perhaps explain why he was eventually bundled so speedily out of the country?
But the other question remains… why was it left to Al Jazeera to make these allegations?
[The questions posed in the last two sentences are highly pertinent. Here are two more: Can the Scottish Government continue, in good conscience, to deny an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction? Can it continue to assert, without becoming a laughing stock, that it is satisfied that Megrahi's conviction is sound?]
While Libya continues to burn, an eerie silence has descended over the British media’s interest in reopening the uncertainties surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. The occasional defecting Libyan minister has pretended to hold previously untold secrets, but nothing has come of them.
It was left to Al Jazeera English to try to lance the boil last Thursday when the channel broadcast an explosive documentary on the subject. The programme makers had gained access to the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the case.
Even more importantly, they managed to see the notebooks and diaries of the Scottish and American investigators written at the time. These were also in the possession of the Review Commission.
In short, the diaries make a blistering allegation – that the central Maltese witness whose testimony was key to convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – had been bribed. The diaries record the apparent “offer of inducements made to Tony Gauci”, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified clothes that were found in the suitcase that carried the bomb on the plane, as having been bought at his shop by al-Megrahi.
Tony Gauci’s brother, Paul, it is claimed, in the same diaries as having “a clear desire to gain financial benefit”. The Review Commissions’ own report states that after the trial Tony Gauci was paid $2 million, and that brother Paul got $1 million reward money.
If true, these would be completely dynamite revelations. Of course, they would have come out in the appeal that Megrahi’s release prevented happening. It is inconceivable that this Scottish Review Commission’s report would not have surfaced at such an appeal. Does this perhaps explain why he was eventually bundled so speedily out of the country?
But the other question remains… why was it left to Al Jazeera to make these allegations?
[The questions posed in the last two sentences are highly pertinent. Here are two more: Can the Scottish Government continue, in good conscience, to deny an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction? Can it continue to assert, without becoming a laughing stock, that it is satisfied that Megrahi's conviction is sound?]
Scottish Sunday Express on the Aljazeera documentary
[What follows is the text of a report by Ben Borland that appeared in yesterday's Scottish edition of the Sunday Express:]
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted on the basis that he bought clothes from Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, including a grey men’s Slalom shirt. The clothing was then packed in a suitcase with the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103, killing 270 on December 21, 1988.
The charred remains of the shirt were crucial to the prosecution, as a forensic scientist found a piece of circuit board from the bomb embedded in the collar which first led investigators to Libya, and ultimately Megrahi.
However, it has now emerged that clothing manufacturers in Malta told Scottish police in January 1990 that the shirt recovered from the crash site was in fact a boy’s size.
Campaigners have stepped up calls for an inquiry after the claims surfaced in a documentary broadcast on Thursday by Arab TV network Al Jazeera but seen by only a handful of Scottish viewers. [RB: The programme can be watched on You Tube here.]
In it, Scotland’s former Lord Advocate also accepted that Gauci, the main prosecution witness, was paid $2million to give evidence against Megrahi. Scottish private investigator George Thomson tracked down shirt manufacturers Tonio Caruana and Godwin Navarro in Malta. They recalled being shown a fragment of shirt by DC John Crawford and telling him, independently of each other, that it was a boy’s shirt
Speaking to the Sunday Express yesterday, Mr Navarro, 76, said: “I stand by my statement. I believe it is a boy’s shirt because of the size of the pocket and the width of the placket, where the button holes are.”
Retired Strathclyde Police superintendent Iain McKie, now a campaigner against miscarriages of justice, said: “The fact that the witnesses say it was a boy’s shirt and not an adult shirt seems to me quite critical.”
He said that if it was a boy’s shirt, then it cannot be the same one purchased from Gauci by the man he later identified as Megrahi – destroying the “evidence chain”.
Supt McKie said the latest claims added weight to calls for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction.
He added: “The whole chain of evidence has been totally and utterly shattered. It is looking more and more like the police came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence.”
The programme, Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber, also alleged that a piece of the shirt had been altered, as it is clearly a different shape in two police photographs.
However a spokesman for the Crown Office said yesterday that the matter was easily explained. He said: “The fragment of cloth alleged to have been removed from the shirt was examined by the scientists and is referred to in the forensic science report. It is clearly a separate fragment.”
But Fife-based Mr Thomson stood by his claims. He said: “In January 1990 they realise that what they have is a fragment of a boy’s shirt, while Gauci is saying he sold a gents’ shirt.
“The reason for people saying this is mainly down to the size of the pocket and lo and behold the next thing a fragment of the pocket has been removed.”
The documentary is the latest foreign TV show to expose doubts in Scotland’s handling of the case.
Dutch filmmaker Gideon Levy won the Prix Europa for the best current affairs programme of 2009 for Lockerbie Revisited, which has never been broadcast in Britain.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted on the basis that he bought clothes from Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, including a grey men’s Slalom shirt. The clothing was then packed in a suitcase with the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103, killing 270 on December 21, 1988.
The charred remains of the shirt were crucial to the prosecution, as a forensic scientist found a piece of circuit board from the bomb embedded in the collar which first led investigators to Libya, and ultimately Megrahi.
However, it has now emerged that clothing manufacturers in Malta told Scottish police in January 1990 that the shirt recovered from the crash site was in fact a boy’s size.
Campaigners have stepped up calls for an inquiry after the claims surfaced in a documentary broadcast on Thursday by Arab TV network Al Jazeera but seen by only a handful of Scottish viewers. [RB: The programme can be watched on You Tube here.]
In it, Scotland’s former Lord Advocate also accepted that Gauci, the main prosecution witness, was paid $2million to give evidence against Megrahi. Scottish private investigator George Thomson tracked down shirt manufacturers Tonio Caruana and Godwin Navarro in Malta. They recalled being shown a fragment of shirt by DC John Crawford and telling him, independently of each other, that it was a boy’s shirt
Speaking to the Sunday Express yesterday, Mr Navarro, 76, said: “I stand by my statement. I believe it is a boy’s shirt because of the size of the pocket and the width of the placket, where the button holes are.”
Retired Strathclyde Police superintendent Iain McKie, now a campaigner against miscarriages of justice, said: “The fact that the witnesses say it was a boy’s shirt and not an adult shirt seems to me quite critical.”
He said that if it was a boy’s shirt, then it cannot be the same one purchased from Gauci by the man he later identified as Megrahi – destroying the “evidence chain”.
Supt McKie said the latest claims added weight to calls for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction.
He added: “The whole chain of evidence has been totally and utterly shattered. It is looking more and more like the police came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence.”
The programme, Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber, also alleged that a piece of the shirt had been altered, as it is clearly a different shape in two police photographs.
However a spokesman for the Crown Office said yesterday that the matter was easily explained. He said: “The fragment of cloth alleged to have been removed from the shirt was examined by the scientists and is referred to in the forensic science report. It is clearly a separate fragment.”
But Fife-based Mr Thomson stood by his claims. He said: “In January 1990 they realise that what they have is a fragment of a boy’s shirt, while Gauci is saying he sold a gents’ shirt.
“The reason for people saying this is mainly down to the size of the pocket and lo and behold the next thing a fragment of the pocket has been removed.”
The documentary is the latest foreign TV show to expose doubts in Scotland’s handling of the case.
Dutch filmmaker Gideon Levy won the Prix Europa for the best current affairs programme of 2009 for Lockerbie Revisited, which has never been broadcast in Britain.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Calls for Gaddafi trial over Lockerbie bombing
[This is the headline over a report on the Herald Scotland website. It reads as follows:]
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi could face trial over the Lockerbie bombing, Scotland’s top law officer has claimed.
Only Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was ever convicted, but Scotland’s new Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, has said if the Crown Office obtains “sufficient, credible and reliable evidence of other people’s involvement in the atrocity, we will seek to prosecute them” and that he would lobby for any trial to take place in Scotland.
Former Libyan justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil has claimed Gaddafi ordered the attack on Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people, and that Megrahi had threatened to expose him unless his release from jail in Scotland was secured.
Mr Mulholland said: “There are opportunities arising from events in Libya and the Crown stands ready. We monitor closely events in Libya to see if anyone with information about the Lockerbie atrocity comes forth and we will act on that.”
He added that it would be “naive in the extreme” to think Megrahi acted alone.
Mr Mulholland said he had not discussed any possible trial location with American officials and his view that it should take place in Scotland puts him at odds with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wants Gaddafi to appear before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
A Labour Party spokesman said: “A realistic case should be built before any grandstanding from the Lord Advocate.”
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing and who wants the verdict against Megrahi re-examined, cast doubt on the value of a trial held under Scots Law.
He said after the mishandling of evidence involving one of the key witnesses in the case, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, he did not think “Scottish justice should claim that it is valid to be used for a trial of anybody in this case”.
A Crown Office spokeswoman said: “Given the current events in Libya the Crown stands ready to investigate any new leads.”
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Megrahi was convicted with others for the Lockerbie bombing and whoever those others are, they should not escape justice.”
[A similar report on The Scotsman website can be read here. Dr Jim Swire is quoted as follows:]
"In view of Scotland having tolerated knowledge, in the public domain for years, that there are very serious faults in the verdict against the one Libyan who was convicted of the atrocity, it would be extremely unwise to submit Colonel Gaddafi or anyone else to Scottish justice."
Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi could face trial over the Lockerbie bombing, Scotland’s top law officer has claimed.
Only Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was ever convicted, but Scotland’s new Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, has said if the Crown Office obtains “sufficient, credible and reliable evidence of other people’s involvement in the atrocity, we will seek to prosecute them” and that he would lobby for any trial to take place in Scotland.
Former Libyan justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil has claimed Gaddafi ordered the attack on Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people, and that Megrahi had threatened to expose him unless his release from jail in Scotland was secured.
Mr Mulholland said: “There are opportunities arising from events in Libya and the Crown stands ready. We monitor closely events in Libya to see if anyone with information about the Lockerbie atrocity comes forth and we will act on that.”
He added that it would be “naive in the extreme” to think Megrahi acted alone.
Mr Mulholland said he had not discussed any possible trial location with American officials and his view that it should take place in Scotland puts him at odds with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who wants Gaddafi to appear before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.
A Labour Party spokesman said: “A realistic case should be built before any grandstanding from the Lord Advocate.”
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the bombing and who wants the verdict against Megrahi re-examined, cast doubt on the value of a trial held under Scots Law.
He said after the mishandling of evidence involving one of the key witnesses in the case, Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, he did not think “Scottish justice should claim that it is valid to be used for a trial of anybody in this case”.
A Crown Office spokeswoman said: “Given the current events in Libya the Crown stands ready to investigate any new leads.”
A Conservative Party spokesman said: “Megrahi was convicted with others for the Lockerbie bombing and whoever those others are, they should not escape justice.”
[A similar report on The Scotsman website can be read here. Dr Jim Swire is quoted as follows:]
"In view of Scotland having tolerated knowledge, in the public domain for years, that there are very serious faults in the verdict against the one Libyan who was convicted of the atrocity, it would be extremely unwise to submit Colonel Gaddafi or anyone else to Scottish justice."
There is nothing like a Dame!
[The following is from a Scottish Government press release:]
Former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC WS becomes a Dame in the Queen's Birthday Honours list.
Former Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC WS becomes a Dame in the Queen's Birthday Honours list.
Friday, 10 June 2011
Megrahi Lockerbie conviction inquiry pressure renewed
[This is the headline over a report published today on the BBC News website. It reads as follows:]
The Scottish government has come under renewed pressure to hold an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
It follows an Al Jazeera broadcast which claimed that a key witness in the trial was paid for his testimony.
The architect of the Lockerbie trial, Prof Robert Black, said an inquiry was vital for the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system.
He was writing in the legal affairs magazine The Firm.
Editor Steven Raeburn said that the Scottish government had the power to order an inquiry.
"The government initially said they had no such power," he said.
"There was a game of diplomatic tennis between the Scottish government and the Westminster government each claiming the other was the best forum and had the necessary powers and so on.
"The Scottish government maintained that position for about 18 months until it was demonstrated that they had the power all along under the Inquiries Act 2005 - the power is there."
Last year, Scotland's leading Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, backed calls for an independent inquiry into the conviction.
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the bombing, has also supported that move.
Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, was released from prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds.
The Scottish government has come under renewed pressure to hold an independent inquiry into the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
It follows an Al Jazeera broadcast which claimed that a key witness in the trial was paid for his testimony.
The architect of the Lockerbie trial, Prof Robert Black, said an inquiry was vital for the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system.
He was writing in the legal affairs magazine The Firm.
Editor Steven Raeburn said that the Scottish government had the power to order an inquiry.
"The government initially said they had no such power," he said.
"There was a game of diplomatic tennis between the Scottish government and the Westminster government each claiming the other was the best forum and had the necessary powers and so on.
"The Scottish government maintained that position for about 18 months until it was demonstrated that they had the power all along under the Inquiries Act 2005 - the power is there."
Last year, Scotland's leading Roman Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, backed calls for an independent inquiry into the conviction.
Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the bombing, has also supported that move.
Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people died, was released from prison in 2009 on compassionate grounds.
Editor of The Firm speaks on Radio Scotland about Megrahi inquiry
Steven Raeburn, editor of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, was interviewed this morning on BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme. The topic was the need for an inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi following the Aljazeera documentary and Marcello Mega's related article. The programme can be accessed here, through The Firm's website.
The Libyan myth
[This is the heading over a section of a long article entitled Three deadly war myths on the Consortium News website by American investigative journalist Robert Parry. The section reads as follows:]
Today’s third deadly myth is Washington’s certainty that Libyan dictator Gaddafi was responsible for the Pan Am 103 attack and thus must be removed from power by force and possibly by assassination.
The alternative option of taking Gaddafi up on his offers of a cease-fire and negotiations toward a political settlement has been rejected out of hand by both the Obama administration and by nearly all the influential pundits in Washington, in part, because of the Pan Am case.
Repeatedly citing Gaddafi’s killing of Americans over Lockerbie, the US debate has centered on the need to ratchet up military pressure on Gaddafi and even chuckle over NATO’s transparent efforts to murder the Libyan leader (and his family members) by bombing his homes and offices.
The Obama administration is sticking with this violent course of action even though Libyan civilians continue to die and the cutoff of Libyan oil from the international markets has exacerbated shortages in supplies, thus contributing to the higher gas prices that are damaging the US economic recovery.
But President Obama apparently sees no choice. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Gaddafi is guilty in the Pan Am 103 case. All the leading US news organizations, such as The New York Times, and prominent politicians, such as Sen John McCain, say so.
“The blood of Americans is on [Gaddafi’s] hands because he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103,” declared Sen McCain, R-Arizona, after an early trip to rebel-held Benghazi.
However, the reality of the Pan Am case is much murkier – and some experts on the mystery believe that Libyans may have had nothing to do with it.
It is true that in 2001, a special Scottish court convicted Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi for the bombing. But the judgment appears to have been more a political compromise than an act of justice. Another Libyan was found not guilty, and one of the Scottish judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about “enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction." [RB: The High Court information officer, Elizabeth Cutting, has denied that this ever happened.]
Megrahi’s conviction assuaged the understandable human desire to see someone punished for such a heinous crime, albeit a possibly innocent man.
In 2007, after the testimony of a key witness against Megrahi was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to reconsider the conviction as a grave miscarriage of justice. However, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities released Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain the early release, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his curious conviction.
The Scottish court’s purported reason for finding Megrahi guilty – while acquitting his co-defendant Lamin Khalifa Fhimah – was the testimony of Toni Gauci, owner of a clothing store in Malta who allegedly sold Megrahi a shirt, the remnants of which were found with the shards of the suitcase that contained the bomb.
The rest of the case rested on a theory that Megrahi put the luggage on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a connecting flight to London, where it was transferred onto Pan Am 103 bound for New York, a decidedly unlikely way to undertake an act of terrorism given all the random variables involved.
Megrahi would have had to assume that three separate airport security systems – at Malta, Frankfort and London – would fail to give any serious scrutiny to an unaccompanied suitcase or to detect the bomb despite security officials being on the lookout for just such a threat.
As historian William Blum recounted in a Consortiumnews.com article after Megrahi’s 2001 conviction, “The case for the suitcase’s hypothetical travels must also deal with the fact that, according to Air Malta, all the documented luggage on KM180 was collected by passengers in Frankfurt and did not continue in transit to London, and that two Pan Am on-duty officials in Frankfurt testified that no unaccompanied luggage was introduced onto Pan Am 103A, the feeder flight to London.”
There also were problems with Gauci’s belated identification of Megrahi as the shirt-buyer a decade after the fact. Gauci had made contradictory IDs and had earlier given a physical description that didn’t match Megrahi. Gauci reportedly received a $2 million reward for his testimony and then moved to Australia, where he went into retirement.
In 2007, the Scottish review panel decided to reconsider Megrahi’s conviction after concluding that Gauci’s testimony was unbelievable. And without Gauci’s testimony, the case against Megrahi was virtually the same as the case against his co-defendant who was acquitted.
However, after Megrahi’s conviction in 2001, more international pressure was put on Libya, which was then regarded as the archetypal “rogue” state. Indeed, it was to get onerous economic sanctions lifted that Libya took “responsibility” for the Pan Am attack and paid reparations to the victims’ families even as Libyan officials continued to deny guilt.
In April, there was some excitement over the possibility that Gaddafi would be fingered personally as the Pan Am 103 mastermind when former Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected. He was believed to be in charge of Libyan intelligence in 1988 and thus almost certainly in the know.
Moussa Koussa was questioned by Scottish authorities but apparently shed little new light on the case. He was allowed to go free after the interview. Very quickly the press interest over Moussa Koussa faded away, except for the recurring assumption in some Western press articles that he must have implicated Gaddafi.
Despite the doubts about the Pan Am 103 case — and the tragic human and economic toll from the Libyan war – the US news media and politicians continue to treat Libya’s guilt as a flat fact. It appears that no big-time journalist or important official has even bothered to read the Scottish court’s bizarre judgment regarding Megrahi’s 2001 conviction.
Instead, NATO’s bombing campaign against Libyan targets continues, including the recent leveling of tents where Gaddafi greets foreign dignitaries and the destruction of Libyan TV.
Rather than making war policies based on serious factual analysis, the United States and NATO continue to be guided by politically pleasing myths. It is a recipe for an even-greater disaster and unnecessary deaths.
Today’s third deadly myth is Washington’s certainty that Libyan dictator Gaddafi was responsible for the Pan Am 103 attack and thus must be removed from power by force and possibly by assassination.
The alternative option of taking Gaddafi up on his offers of a cease-fire and negotiations toward a political settlement has been rejected out of hand by both the Obama administration and by nearly all the influential pundits in Washington, in part, because of the Pan Am case.
Repeatedly citing Gaddafi’s killing of Americans over Lockerbie, the US debate has centered on the need to ratchet up military pressure on Gaddafi and even chuckle over NATO’s transparent efforts to murder the Libyan leader (and his family members) by bombing his homes and offices.
The Obama administration is sticking with this violent course of action even though Libyan civilians continue to die and the cutoff of Libyan oil from the international markets has exacerbated shortages in supplies, thus contributing to the higher gas prices that are damaging the US economic recovery.
But President Obama apparently sees no choice. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Gaddafi is guilty in the Pan Am 103 case. All the leading US news organizations, such as The New York Times, and prominent politicians, such as Sen John McCain, say so.
“The blood of Americans is on [Gaddafi’s] hands because he was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103,” declared Sen McCain, R-Arizona, after an early trip to rebel-held Benghazi.
However, the reality of the Pan Am case is much murkier – and some experts on the mystery believe that Libyans may have had nothing to do with it.
It is true that in 2001, a special Scottish court convicted Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi for the bombing. But the judgment appears to have been more a political compromise than an act of justice. Another Libyan was found not guilty, and one of the Scottish judges told Dartmouth government professor Dirk Vandewalle about “enormous pressure put on the court to get a conviction." [RB: The High Court information officer, Elizabeth Cutting, has denied that this ever happened.]
Megrahi’s conviction assuaged the understandable human desire to see someone punished for such a heinous crime, albeit a possibly innocent man.
In 2007, after the testimony of a key witness against Megrahi was discredited, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission agreed to reconsider the conviction as a grave miscarriage of justice. However, that review was proceeding slowly in 2009 when Scottish authorities released Megrahi on humanitarian grounds, after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Megrahi dropped his appeal in order to gain the early release, but that doesn’t mean he was guilty. He has continued to assert his innocence and an objective press corps would reflect the doubts regarding his curious conviction.
The Scottish court’s purported reason for finding Megrahi guilty – while acquitting his co-defendant Lamin Khalifa Fhimah – was the testimony of Toni Gauci, owner of a clothing store in Malta who allegedly sold Megrahi a shirt, the remnants of which were found with the shards of the suitcase that contained the bomb.
The rest of the case rested on a theory that Megrahi put the luggage on a flight from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a connecting flight to London, where it was transferred onto Pan Am 103 bound for New York, a decidedly unlikely way to undertake an act of terrorism given all the random variables involved.
Megrahi would have had to assume that three separate airport security systems – at Malta, Frankfort and London – would fail to give any serious scrutiny to an unaccompanied suitcase or to detect the bomb despite security officials being on the lookout for just such a threat.
As historian William Blum recounted in a Consortiumnews.com article after Megrahi’s 2001 conviction, “The case for the suitcase’s hypothetical travels must also deal with the fact that, according to Air Malta, all the documented luggage on KM180 was collected by passengers in Frankfurt and did not continue in transit to London, and that two Pan Am on-duty officials in Frankfurt testified that no unaccompanied luggage was introduced onto Pan Am 103A, the feeder flight to London.”
There also were problems with Gauci’s belated identification of Megrahi as the shirt-buyer a decade after the fact. Gauci had made contradictory IDs and had earlier given a physical description that didn’t match Megrahi. Gauci reportedly received a $2 million reward for his testimony and then moved to Australia, where he went into retirement.
In 2007, the Scottish review panel decided to reconsider Megrahi’s conviction after concluding that Gauci’s testimony was unbelievable. And without Gauci’s testimony, the case against Megrahi was virtually the same as the case against his co-defendant who was acquitted.
However, after Megrahi’s conviction in 2001, more international pressure was put on Libya, which was then regarded as the archetypal “rogue” state. Indeed, it was to get onerous economic sanctions lifted that Libya took “responsibility” for the Pan Am attack and paid reparations to the victims’ families even as Libyan officials continued to deny guilt.
In April, there was some excitement over the possibility that Gaddafi would be fingered personally as the Pan Am 103 mastermind when former Libyan foreign minister Moussa Koussa defected. He was believed to be in charge of Libyan intelligence in 1988 and thus almost certainly in the know.
Moussa Koussa was questioned by Scottish authorities but apparently shed little new light on the case. He was allowed to go free after the interview. Very quickly the press interest over Moussa Koussa faded away, except for the recurring assumption in some Western press articles that he must have implicated Gaddafi.
Despite the doubts about the Pan Am 103 case — and the tragic human and economic toll from the Libyan war – the US news media and politicians continue to treat Libya’s guilt as a flat fact. It appears that no big-time journalist or important official has even bothered to read the Scottish court’s bizarre judgment regarding Megrahi’s 2001 conviction.
Instead, NATO’s bombing campaign against Libyan targets continues, including the recent leveling of tents where Gaddafi greets foreign dignitaries and the destruction of Libyan TV.
Rather than making war policies based on serious factual analysis, the United States and NATO continue to be guided by politically pleasing myths. It is a recipe for an even-greater disaster and unnecessary deaths.
Thursday, 9 June 2011
No excuse whatsoever
[This is the heading over an article by me just published on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
Writing exclusively for The Firm, Professor Robert Black QC argues that the latest revelations which strike at the heart of the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi leave no excuse left for the Government to avoid convening an inquiry in the Pan Am 103 affair.
This is a comment that I posted a few days ago on the Lallands Peat Worrier blog:
“In an ideal world, I would prefer there to be no Scottish recourse, civil or criminal, to a UK Supreme Court. But, at present, on human rights issues, Scottish prosecutors and courts are getting it wrong far too often for comfort. How this is to be remedied, I do not know (but having career Crown Office civil servants as our law officers certainly doesn't help).
“And it is tragic that two of the best Scottish judges of their generation (Lords Hope and Rodger) have to be transported to London (where most of their time is spent hearing English appeals) when they are so badly needed in Scotland.”
One way of showing that we do not in Scotland need a UK Supreme Court nanny would be to take rigorous steps domestically to investigate cases where there is clear evidence of the justice system having miscarried. The clearest and worst such case is the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.
The Aljazeera documentary Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber? is just the latest in a series of hammer-blows, ranging from the published views of UN observer Dr Hans Koechler, the findings (to the extent that they have been released) of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, to the devastating critiques of Gareth Peirce, the most experienced and successful UK lawyer in overturning gross miscarriages of justice.
The outraged reaction of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC (the Lord Advocate who brought the charges against Megrahi and Fhimah) to the evidence presented to him that the Crown’s principal witness was being offered monetary inducements will be shared by any lawyer who has the slightest concern for the probity of our criminal justice system. The acceptance by the Zeist court of that witness’s credibility and reliability was essential to their verdict of guilty and without his evidence there could have been no conviction. Had the judges known of the shady financial dealings going on behind the scenes, their assessment of the witness’s evidence must have been very different.
There is now no excuse whatsoever for the Scottish Government to deny an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. If the career Crown Office civil servants who are currently Scotland’s law officers stand in the way, they must be sacked.
It is time that the Scottish criminal justice system regained its self-respect.
[A news item in the magazine on this article can be read here.]
Writing exclusively for The Firm, Professor Robert Black QC argues that the latest revelations which strike at the heart of the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi leave no excuse left for the Government to avoid convening an inquiry in the Pan Am 103 affair.
This is a comment that I posted a few days ago on the Lallands Peat Worrier blog:
“In an ideal world, I would prefer there to be no Scottish recourse, civil or criminal, to a UK Supreme Court. But, at present, on human rights issues, Scottish prosecutors and courts are getting it wrong far too often for comfort. How this is to be remedied, I do not know (but having career Crown Office civil servants as our law officers certainly doesn't help).
“And it is tragic that two of the best Scottish judges of their generation (Lords Hope and Rodger) have to be transported to London (where most of their time is spent hearing English appeals) when they are so badly needed in Scotland.”
One way of showing that we do not in Scotland need a UK Supreme Court nanny would be to take rigorous steps domestically to investigate cases where there is clear evidence of the justice system having miscarried. The clearest and worst such case is the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing.
The Aljazeera documentary Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber? is just the latest in a series of hammer-blows, ranging from the published views of UN observer Dr Hans Koechler, the findings (to the extent that they have been released) of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, to the devastating critiques of Gareth Peirce, the most experienced and successful UK lawyer in overturning gross miscarriages of justice.
The outraged reaction of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC (the Lord Advocate who brought the charges against Megrahi and Fhimah) to the evidence presented to him that the Crown’s principal witness was being offered monetary inducements will be shared by any lawyer who has the slightest concern for the probity of our criminal justice system. The acceptance by the Zeist court of that witness’s credibility and reliability was essential to their verdict of guilty and without his evidence there could have been no conviction. Had the judges known of the shady financial dealings going on behind the scenes, their assessment of the witness’s evidence must have been very different.
There is now no excuse whatsoever for the Scottish Government to deny an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction. If the career Crown Office civil servants who are currently Scotland’s law officers stand in the way, they must be sacked.
It is time that the Scottish criminal justice system regained its self-respect.
[A news item in the magazine on this article can be read here.]
Prologue to Aljazeera Lockerbie documentary
[I am grateful to Marcello Mega for allowing me to reproduce the following article, versions of which appeared today in the Scottish editions of The Times, the Daily Mail and The Sun:]
The former Lord Advocate who issued the indictment against the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has accepted there is clear evidence that the key witness, a Maltese shopkeeper, was promised a fortune for his testimony.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, who was Scotland’s most senior prosecutor until 1993, announced in November 1991 that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and his co-accused, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, were wanted for the murder of 270 people on 21 December 1988.
Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
The former law officer said: “I remember a time when things were warming up and there was talk from the US about sending a squad into Tripoli to seize the suspects, rather as they did with Noriega in Panama.
“I had to warn them that if that happened there would never be a trial in any Scottish or UK court. I also warned our investigators that the eyes of the world were on us, and everything had to be done by the book.
“It would be unacceptable to offer bribes, inducements or rewards to any witness in a routine murder trial in Glasgow or Dundee, and it is obviously unacceptable to have done it in the biggest case of mass murder ever carried out in Europe.”
Lord Fraser said he had been asked before about allegations of inducements offered to Gauci, but had never before been presented with evidence of it.
Gauci was absolutely central to Megrahi’s conviction because the clothes recovered from the suitcase that carried the bomb onto Pan Am 103 at Heathrow, bound for New York, were traced back to his shop.
Although he never stated that Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes, his numerous statements and testimony in court saying he resembled the buyer was accepted as proof of his guilt by the three Scottish judges who sentenced him to life in 2001.
Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer and released on compassionate grounds to die at home in August 2009, but remains alive almost two years later.
Evidence of the inducements made to Gauci has emerged during an investigation by a team working for Network Features on a new documentary on the questions that still surround the bombing.
Among the material unearthed are records of diary entries made by retired Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of Strathclyde Police. He was the Scottish officer with regular close contact with Gauci after the bomb-damaged clothes were traced to his shop.
At Megrahi’s trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish detectives involved in the case were asked whether Gauci had ever been offered inducements for his testimony, and all denied it.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal - abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.
An extract quoted by the SCCRC from February 1991 reveals that Gauci was being treated to an expensive holiday. He wanted to invite his father along but was concerned about how to explain his ability to pay for it.
The diary extract says: “He was told to suggest the National Lotto as having won a prize.”
Also in February 1991, Bell told Det Chief Supt Jim Gilchrist, who was then the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, in a memo that ‘Tony Gauci has expressed interest in receiving money in recent meetings’.
The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’.
Its report confirms that after the trial, Tony Gauci received more than $2m and his brother more than $1m in reward money.
This contradicts assurances given publicly on many occasions by Richard Marquise, the lead FBI officer on Lockerbie, that ‘no witness in this case was ever promised or paid any money in return for their testimony’.
The Network Features investigation also reveals that key pieces of evidence originated in police laboratories and were introduced artificially to the chain of evidence, and that witness statements that interrupted the chain were altered or suppressed.
Gauci and Bell declined to be interviewed for the programme.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber? is broadcast tonight (Thursday 9th) on Al Jazeera English at 9pm.
[Today's Aljazeera English schedule can be viewed here.]
The former Lord Advocate who issued the indictment against the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has accepted there is clear evidence that the key witness, a Maltese shopkeeper, was promised a fortune for his testimony.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC, who was Scotland’s most senior prosecutor until 1993, announced in November 1991 that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and his co-accused, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, were wanted for the murder of 270 people on 21 December 1988.
Presented with documents showing that Scottish police officers and FBI agents had discussed as early as September 1989, ‘an offer of unlimited money to Tony Gauci, with $10,000 being available immediately’, Lord Fraser said: “I have to accept that it happened. It shouldn’t have and I was unaware of it.”
The former law officer said: “I remember a time when things were warming up and there was talk from the US about sending a squad into Tripoli to seize the suspects, rather as they did with Noriega in Panama.
“I had to warn them that if that happened there would never be a trial in any Scottish or UK court. I also warned our investigators that the eyes of the world were on us, and everything had to be done by the book.
“It would be unacceptable to offer bribes, inducements or rewards to any witness in a routine murder trial in Glasgow or Dundee, and it is obviously unacceptable to have done it in the biggest case of mass murder ever carried out in Europe.”
Lord Fraser said he had been asked before about allegations of inducements offered to Gauci, but had never before been presented with evidence of it.
Gauci was absolutely central to Megrahi’s conviction because the clothes recovered from the suitcase that carried the bomb onto Pan Am 103 at Heathrow, bound for New York, were traced back to his shop.
Although he never stated that Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes, his numerous statements and testimony in court saying he resembled the buyer was accepted as proof of his guilt by the three Scottish judges who sentenced him to life in 2001.
Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer and released on compassionate grounds to die at home in August 2009, but remains alive almost two years later.
Evidence of the inducements made to Gauci has emerged during an investigation by a team working for Network Features on a new documentary on the questions that still surround the bombing.
Among the material unearthed are records of diary entries made by retired Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of Strathclyde Police. He was the Scottish officer with regular close contact with Gauci after the bomb-damaged clothes were traced to his shop.
At Megrahi’s trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish detectives involved in the case were asked whether Gauci had ever been offered inducements for his testimony, and all denied it.
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted its own investigation into the case, which resulted in it being referred back for a second appeal - abandoned when Megrahi was freed. Unlike the trial court, it required police officers to produce notebooks and diaries.
Harry Bell’s diary reveals that reward money was discussed from September 1989 onwards, within days of Gauci being traced.
An extract quoted by the SCCRC from February 1991 reveals that Gauci was being treated to an expensive holiday. He wanted to invite his father along but was concerned about how to explain his ability to pay for it.
The diary extract says: “He was told to suggest the National Lotto as having won a prize.”
Also in February 1991, Bell told Det Chief Supt Jim Gilchrist, who was then the Senior Investigating Officer in the case, in a memo that ‘Tony Gauci has expressed interest in receiving money in recent meetings’.
The Commission also reported that Gauci’s brother, Paul, who made important witness statements, ‘had a clear desire to gain financial benefit’, and that ‘the US authorities offered to make substantial payments to Tony Gauci at an early stage’.
Its report confirms that after the trial, Tony Gauci received more than $2m and his brother more than $1m in reward money.
This contradicts assurances given publicly on many occasions by Richard Marquise, the lead FBI officer on Lockerbie, that ‘no witness in this case was ever promised or paid any money in return for their testimony’.
The Network Features investigation also reveals that key pieces of evidence originated in police laboratories and were introduced artificially to the chain of evidence, and that witness statements that interrupted the chain were altered or suppressed.
Gauci and Bell declined to be interviewed for the programme.
Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber? is broadcast tonight (Thursday 9th) on Al Jazeera English at 9pm.
[Today's Aljazeera English schedule can be viewed here.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)