[This is the headline over an item published yesterday on The Lede blog on The New York Times website. It reads in part:]
Video broadcast on Libyan state television on Tuesday of a rally in support of Col Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government appeared to show Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people.
The public appearance in Libya comes nearly two years after Mr Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds and said to have just three months to live.
In a copy of the video posted online by London’s Telegraph, Mr Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, was seated in a wheelchair, wearing a surgical mask. (...)
Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said the footage would stoke further “anger and outrage” at Mr Megrahi’s release from jail in 2009 and was “a further reminder that a great mistake was made,” by Scotland’s local government, the BBC reports. (...)
His continued survival is likely to further anger from some of the families of the victims killed in the bombing. Several American families objected to the release of Mr Megrahi, who served only 8 years of a 27-year minimum sentence. Of the 259 people killed on the plane, 198 were American, and the United States strongly opposed his release. Other victims were killed as the wreckage of the plane plunged to earth in Lockerbie.
Scottish politicians from opposition parties reacted to the footage with anger, Scotland’s STV reports. Iain Gray, of the Scottish Labour Party, called Mr Megrahi’s appearance an “embarrassment” for Mr MacAskill, and the leader of the Scottish government, Alex Salmond. Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond are leaders of the ruling Scottish National Party.
John Lamont, a Scottish Conservative, said: “The last thing relatives of the 270 people murdered by the Lockerbie bomber need to see is the sight of him alive and well and free, almost two years after he was released by the SNP government.”
Complicating the debate is the fact that the relatives of some people killed in the bombing continue to doubt that Mr Megrahi was responsible for the attack and have called for a fresh inquiry.
Christine Grahame, a member of the Scottish Parliament’s justice committee from the Scottish National Party told STV that she believes Mr Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, and is “not unhappy” to see him alive.
[This report at least recognises that serious concerns exist over the conviction of Megrahi, something very unusual, and very welcome, in coverage of Lockerbie in the United States. It also (unlike most UK newspapers apart from The Herald) refers to Megrahi as the "Lockerbie convict", which he is, and not as the "Lockerbie bomber", which, on the evidence, he is not.
An altogether more sensationalist and unbalanced report appears in today's edition of the British tabloid Daily Mirror under the headline Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be put back behind bars. It reads in part:]
Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi could be sent back to prison after Foreign Secretary William Hague dismissed the medical evidence that clinched his freedom. (...)
Mr Hague said: “His appearance on television is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released. This was absolutely the wrong thing to do.
“It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless.
“I think the anger and outrage of many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, will be further intensified by what we have seen.”
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “Seeing al-Megrahi as a cheerleader for a dictator indicted for war crimes has turned the stomach of our nation.”
A senior Foreign Office source said Libyan rebels could hand al-Megrahi, 59, back to Britain or extradite him to the US if they topple Gaddafi.
[Yet more coverage of William Hague's defamatory comments about the medical advice on which Kenny MacAskill acted. Don't newspapers have their reports legalled any more?
A typically inflammatory editorial in the Daily Mail headed "Libya is a stain on Britain’s conscience" can be read here.]
Thursday, 28 July 2011
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Defamation, anyone?
[The following are excerpts from the report on The Telegraph website of Foreign Secretary William Hague's press conference comments following the television pictures of Abdelbaset Megrahi at a Tripoli rally yesterday:]
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers", said Mr Hague at a press conference in London when he announced the expulsion of Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless." (...)
The Scottish Government stood by its decision to release al-Megrahi on Wednesday and defended the medical advice that led to it.
“Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service’s most senior health professional,” a spokesman from the Scottish government said.
“This material is all in the public domain – including the medical report – and it all vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.”
"Indeed, it is clear that only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter, while the UK Government said one thing in public and another in private," the spokesman insisted.
“The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken ‘in good faith’.
“Instead of criticising a senior health professional, Mr Hague should understand that the medical advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, a professional of impeccable integrity."
[To accuse a senior doctor of supplying medical advice which was "pretty much worthless" is grossly defamatory. Mr Hague was speaking at a press conference, not in Parliament. His comments are accordingly not subject to absolute privilege. Dr Fraser should consider suing for defamation.
In this and the previous post, I should not, of course, have disseminated the defamatory imputation. But since The Independent, The Telegraph and countless other organs of the media have done so, I'm prepared to live (just a little) dangerously.]
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers", said Mr Hague at a press conference in London when he announced the expulsion of Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless." (...)
The Scottish Government stood by its decision to release al-Megrahi on Wednesday and defended the medical advice that led to it.
“Al-Megrahi was released on compassionate grounds based on the recommendations of the Parole Board, the prison governor and the medical report of the Scottish Prison Service’s most senior health professional,” a spokesman from the Scottish government said.
“This material is all in the public domain – including the medical report – and it all vindicates the Scottish Government’s position.”
"Indeed, it is clear that only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter, while the UK Government said one thing in public and another in private," the spokesman insisted.
“The Scottish Parliament Justice Committee examined all relevant aspects of this issue, and concluded that the decision was taken ‘in good faith’.
“Instead of criticising a senior health professional, Mr Hague should understand that the medical advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, a professional of impeccable integrity."
[To accuse a senior doctor of supplying medical advice which was "pretty much worthless" is grossly defamatory. Mr Hague was speaking at a press conference, not in Parliament. His comments are accordingly not subject to absolute privilege. Dr Fraser should consider suing for defamation.
In this and the previous post, I should not, of course, have disseminated the defamatory imputation. But since The Independent, The Telegraph and countless other organs of the media have done so, I'm prepared to live (just a little) dangerously.]
William Hague condemns Megrahi release
[This is the headline over a report just published on The Independent website. It reads in part:]
The appearance of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on Libyan television has confirmed that a "great mistake" was made in releasing him from jail, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today.
Mr Hague said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison almost two years ago on compassionate grounds was "absolutely the wrong thing to do".
In footage seen by the BBC last night, a television presenter introduced Megrahi at what appeared to be a pro-government rally, and said his conviction was the result of a "conspiracy". (...)
He returned to Libya in August 2009 after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. The Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live.
At a press conference in central London, Mr Hague said the footage demonstrated that this advice was "pretty much worthless".
He said: "I think the appearance of Mr al-Megrahi on our television screens is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released.
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless and I think many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, I think their anger and outrage at this release will be further intensified by what we have seen. [RB: Not much anger and outrage seems to be emanating from the UK relatives of those killed over Lockerbie.]
"So it has always been our view this was a mistake and this simply confirms that."
The appearance of the convicted Lockerbie bomber on Libyan television has confirmed that a "great mistake" was made in releasing him from jail, Foreign Secretary William Hague said today.
Mr Hague said Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's release from a Scottish prison almost two years ago on compassionate grounds was "absolutely the wrong thing to do".
In footage seen by the BBC last night, a television presenter introduced Megrahi at what appeared to be a pro-government rally, and said his conviction was the result of a "conspiracy". (...)
He returned to Libya in August 2009 after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer. The Scottish Government accepted advice that he had about three months to live.
At a press conference in central London, Mr Hague said the footage demonstrated that this advice was "pretty much worthless".
He said: "I think the appearance of Mr al-Megrahi on our television screens is a further reminder that a great mistake was made when he was released.
"The Prime Minister and I, when we were in opposition, both strongly disagreed with that position by Scottish ministers.
"We disagreed with what has subsequently been revealed about the facilitation by the previous Labour government at Westminster of moves towards the release of al-Megrahi."
He added: "This was absolutely the wrong thing to do. It shows the medical advice it was based on was pretty much worthless and I think many people, particularly the families of those killed at Lockerbie, I think their anger and outrage at this release will be further intensified by what we have seen. [RB: Not much anger and outrage seems to be emanating from the UK relatives of those killed over Lockerbie.]
"So it has always been our view this was a mistake and this simply confirms that."
Tuesday, 26 July 2011
Megrahi at rally broadcast by Libyan state television
[What follows is from a report on the BBC News website:]
The man convicted of blowing up a plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 has appeared at a rally broadcast by Libyan state television.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland almost two years ago on health grounds.
Introducing him at a televised rally of members of Megrahi's tribe, the presenter said his conviction was the result of a conspiracy.
He said his release had been a victory against oppression. (...)
Megrahi returned to Libya where has rarely been seen.
During the broadcast from Tripoli, which was described as live, Megrahi was seen in a wheelchair.
After playing the national anthem, a presenter said "half of the world conspired against" Megrahi.
[In a comment on this blog, Rolfe wrote:
"I saw Megrahi on TV about an hour ago. It was a clip from a pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, and he was sitting in a wheelchair watching the proceedings. He was wearing a large white head-dress, like a big turban. He didn't look too bad, from what I could see, though it was a short clip and not close-up.
"No doubt this will enrage the Americans even further."
A friend in Scotland e-mailed me this:
"Reporting Scotland had on, right at the very end, saying they had just got the video in, a brief (10-ish seconds) video of Megrahi in a wheelchair supposedly at a pro-government rally in Libya. There was some Arabic title underneath and the date as 2011-07-26.
"He was looking appropriately frail. Either coughing or lifting an oxygen mask to his face – couldn’t make out exactly. The wheelchair was itself on a dais, alongside other spectators of whatever was going on (which they didn’t show)."
A report on The Herald website can be read here, one on The Guardian website can be read here, and one on the CNN website can be read here. The report on The Telegraph website contains the following:]
The pictures compounded embarassment in the Scottish Executive which appears to have seized on a misdiagnosis to grant parole on medical grounds in 2009.
He was expected to live less that 90 days but has since passed more than 400 days in his native Libya.
The man convicted of blowing up a plane over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in 1988 has appeared at a rally broadcast by Libyan state television.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison in Scotland almost two years ago on health grounds.
Introducing him at a televised rally of members of Megrahi's tribe, the presenter said his conviction was the result of a conspiracy.
He said his release had been a victory against oppression. (...)
Megrahi returned to Libya where has rarely been seen.
During the broadcast from Tripoli, which was described as live, Megrahi was seen in a wheelchair.
After playing the national anthem, a presenter said "half of the world conspired against" Megrahi.
[In a comment on this blog, Rolfe wrote:
"I saw Megrahi on TV about an hour ago. It was a clip from a pro-Gadaffi rally in Tripoli, and he was sitting in a wheelchair watching the proceedings. He was wearing a large white head-dress, like a big turban. He didn't look too bad, from what I could see, though it was a short clip and not close-up.
"No doubt this will enrage the Americans even further."
A friend in Scotland e-mailed me this:
"Reporting Scotland had on, right at the very end, saying they had just got the video in, a brief (10-ish seconds) video of Megrahi in a wheelchair supposedly at a pro-government rally in Libya. There was some Arabic title underneath and the date as 2011-07-26.
"He was looking appropriately frail. Either coughing or lifting an oxygen mask to his face – couldn’t make out exactly. The wheelchair was itself on a dais, alongside other spectators of whatever was going on (which they didn’t show)."
A report on The Herald website can be read here, one on The Guardian website can be read here, and one on the CNN website can be read here. The report on The Telegraph website contains the following:]
The pictures compounded embarassment in the Scottish Executive which appears to have seized on a misdiagnosis to grant parole on medical grounds in 2009.
He was expected to live less that 90 days but has since passed more than 400 days in his native Libya.
Anders Behring Breivik and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
[As might have been expected, US commentators are drawing parallels between the sentence facing Anders Breivik if convicted of the Utoya killings and the sentence served by Abdelbaset Megrahi. Here is Michael Rubin in Commentary magazine:]
Alana Goodman pens an excellent post regarding how little jail time the confessed Norwegian terrorist and killer can expect for killing scores of civilians, both in his initial truck bomb blast and then in his shooting spree on Utoya island. According to some Norwegian analysts, he might expect a maximum of 21 years, or approximately 83 days per murder and, as Alana points out, will serve his time in relative luxury.
This certainly is outrageous, but unfortunately it’s the rule rather than the exception in many European states as postmodern theories of compassion and rehabilitation trump the importance of justice. Just take a look at that other mass murderer on the other side of the North Sea: On August 20, 2009, a Scottish court released Libyan agent and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi after serving just 11.5 days per murder for downing Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people. Scottish authorities defended Megrahi’s release on the grounds of compassion: He had, after all, only weeks to live. Never mind that today he appears to be doing quite fine in Tripoli.
It’s well past time for Europe to put justice first and reserve compassion for the victims of crime and terror, not the perpetrators.
[And here is Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:]
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo on Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s. (...)
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their state's death penalty. There are consequences.
Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, Western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be a first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya - having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty, then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil.
Alana Goodman pens an excellent post regarding how little jail time the confessed Norwegian terrorist and killer can expect for killing scores of civilians, both in his initial truck bomb blast and then in his shooting spree on Utoya island. According to some Norwegian analysts, he might expect a maximum of 21 years, or approximately 83 days per murder and, as Alana points out, will serve his time in relative luxury.
This certainly is outrageous, but unfortunately it’s the rule rather than the exception in many European states as postmodern theories of compassion and rehabilitation trump the importance of justice. Just take a look at that other mass murderer on the other side of the North Sea: On August 20, 2009, a Scottish court released Libyan agent and Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi after serving just 11.5 days per murder for downing Pan Am Flight 103 and killing 270 people. Scottish authorities defended Megrahi’s release on the grounds of compassion: He had, after all, only weeks to live. Never mind that today he appears to be doing quite fine in Tripoli.
It’s well past time for Europe to put justice first and reserve compassion for the victims of crime and terror, not the perpetrators.
[And here is Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle:]
Now 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik stands accused of killing 76 individuals, many of them teenagers, in a vicious rampage that began with a bombing in Oslo on Friday. If convicted, he can expect to be a free man in his 50s. (...)
There is a lesson for Americans in this tale. Politicians in some states, including California, are pushing to end their state's death penalty. There are consequences.
Our Betters in Europe got rid of capital punishment decades ago. Next, Western European leaders went after life without parole. As Eurocrats focused on the redemption of offenders, they seemed to forget their obligation to protect the innocent and serve as a voice for silenced victims.
Hoover Institution legal fellow Abraham D Sofaer sees the 21-year cap as "absurdly inadequate" for this type of heinous crime. "I'm sure it's well intentioned. Maybe it works in most cases," he added. "But then you get these cases, where one would think almost anyone would agree that 21 years is an insult."
This wouldn't be a first time a modern terrorist won short time for a long list of victims on European soil. In 2001, three Scottish judges found former Libya intelligence operative Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi guilty in the 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 bombing, which killed all 270 aboard. Scotland's life sentence made him eligible for parole in 27 years.
But after eight years, Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill granted Megrahi "compassionate" release on the grounds the Libyan had terminal cancer and was not expected to live more than three months. Almost two years later, Megrahi is alive and living large in Libya - having served mere weeks per victim.
When a country's justice system dispenses with the death penalty, then life sentences, it has no mechanism to redress evil.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Barlinnie unlocked: Gaddafi Cafe gets a world famous guest
[This is the headline over a story in today's edition of the Sunday Mail (not to be confused with the Mail on Sunday). I reproduce it here simply because it links Abdelbaset Megrahi and South Africa, my second home.]
Huge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela as he travelled from South Africa to meet Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
He met the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2002 on a diplomatic excursion to see how he was being treated.
The former president of South Africa also discussed a campaign for Megrahi to serve his sentence in a Libyan prison.
Everyone who has met Mandela speaks of his kindness, gentleness and good manners.
His visit to Gaddafi's Cafe, the nickname given to the area of Barlinnie where Megrahi was held, underlined the humanity of the man.
After all, Mandela himself spent 18 of his 27 years in jail on Robben Island after being locked up by the South Africa's apartheid government.
Most of the crowd hoping to meet him were positioned around the reception and the main gates. Everyone on the staff wanted a glimpse of the great man. The wellwishers were rows deep.
But as he passed through the throng, Mandela stopped, looked to the edge of the crowd and spotted a young prison officer right at the back.
He said: "You sir, step down here."
When the officer got to the front, Mandela shook his hand, giving him a moment he would never forget.
Mandela remarked that he, too, knew what it was like to be at the back row and not noticed.
The great leader then went inside to meet Megrahi.
But he declined an offer to visit the cell blocks.
Mandela had seen enough to last a lifetime.
[My South African friends are in mourning over the miserable Springbok performance in yesterday's match against the Wallabies. In the bar at Gannaga Lodge while the game was in progess I greatly expanded my knowledge of demotic Afrikaans. Every cloud has a silver lining.]
Huge crowds greeted Nelson Mandela as he travelled from South Africa to meet Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
He met the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 2002 on a diplomatic excursion to see how he was being treated.
The former president of South Africa also discussed a campaign for Megrahi to serve his sentence in a Libyan prison.
Everyone who has met Mandela speaks of his kindness, gentleness and good manners.
His visit to Gaddafi's Cafe, the nickname given to the area of Barlinnie where Megrahi was held, underlined the humanity of the man.
After all, Mandela himself spent 18 of his 27 years in jail on Robben Island after being locked up by the South Africa's apartheid government.
Most of the crowd hoping to meet him were positioned around the reception and the main gates. Everyone on the staff wanted a glimpse of the great man. The wellwishers were rows deep.
But as he passed through the throng, Mandela stopped, looked to the edge of the crowd and spotted a young prison officer right at the back.
He said: "You sir, step down here."
When the officer got to the front, Mandela shook his hand, giving him a moment he would never forget.
Mandela remarked that he, too, knew what it was like to be at the back row and not noticed.
The great leader then went inside to meet Megrahi.
But he declined an offer to visit the cell blocks.
Mandela had seen enough to last a lifetime.
[My South African friends are in mourning over the miserable Springbok performance in yesterday's match against the Wallabies. In the bar at Gannaga Lodge while the game was in progess I greatly expanded my knowledge of demotic Afrikaans. Every cloud has a silver lining.]
Exploding Lockerbie
[This is the title of a two-part article in the Criminal Law & Justice Weekly by David Wolchover, barrister and Head of Chambers Emeritus at 7 Bell Yard, London. It examines in detail the evidence led at Camp Zeist about the ingestion of the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. Part I of the article can be read here and Part II here. The conclusion of the two-part article reads as follows:]
It will have become apparent from the analysis of the evidence before the court offered here that wherever the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was built the Samsonite hardshell bag in which it was packed could not have come from Luqa as an anonymous item of baggage on KM180, or from Frankfurt on PA103A. It should have been as “plain as a pikestaff” that it was smuggled into the system at Heathrow.
Why the Judges lost sight of the wood for the trees is not a matter which warrants conjecture. That they did so is beyond doubt. When asked by Lord MacLean to confirm that al-Megrahi’s Abdusamad passport was never used again after December 21, 1988, William Taylor QC said “We don’t know that”, to which Lord Maclean riposted “Yes I do” and gave the reference. The Judge got the acerbic reply he truly deserved: “Thank you. I am corrected. So your Lordship has asked me a question to which your Lordship already had the answer.” The application of a sight more judicial cleverness and rather less too cleverness by half might have delivered a truer verdict.
[An earlier Lockerbie article by Mr Wolchover "Masking justice with 'mercy'" can be accessed here.]
It will have become apparent from the analysis of the evidence before the court offered here that wherever the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was built the Samsonite hardshell bag in which it was packed could not have come from Luqa as an anonymous item of baggage on KM180, or from Frankfurt on PA103A. It should have been as “plain as a pikestaff” that it was smuggled into the system at Heathrow.
Why the Judges lost sight of the wood for the trees is not a matter which warrants conjecture. That they did so is beyond doubt. When asked by Lord MacLean to confirm that al-Megrahi’s Abdusamad passport was never used again after December 21, 1988, William Taylor QC said “We don’t know that”, to which Lord Maclean riposted “Yes I do” and gave the reference. The Judge got the acerbic reply he truly deserved: “Thank you. I am corrected. So your Lordship has asked me a question to which your Lordship already had the answer.” The application of a sight more judicial cleverness and rather less too cleverness by half might have delivered a truer verdict.
[An earlier Lockerbie article by Mr Wolchover "Masking justice with 'mercy'" can be accessed here.]
Thursday, 21 July 2011
Retrying Megrahi in the United States
In the light of suggestions that have been made over the past few months by American officials and commentators that the United States might wish to have Abdelbaset Megrahi handed over to the United States for retrial in America, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider some of the legal problems that would be faced in bringing this about.
As I said in a blog post on 6 March 2011:
"The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime)."
Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States, provides (art VI, clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This means that the binding international obligation entered into by the United States in respect of the Lockerbie trial precludes any US court from trying Megrahi since that would be a breach of the international agreement regarding Lockerbie jurisdiction which the US itself co-sponsored.
Moreover, during the Camp Zeist trial, US government lawyers sat amongst the prosecutors and when their presence was questioned the Crown Office responded that the Lord Advocate could select whomsoever he chose to form part of the prosecution team. It can be strongly argued that this active participation by United States officials, as part of the prosecution team, in a trial which the US co-sponsored, personally bars (estops) the US from instituting its own national criminal proceedings.
As mentioned above, the US could sponsor a new UN Security Council resolution permitting it to retry Megrahi. But is there any realistic prospect of such a resolution being passed? The United States could also seek to pass internal US legislation permitting a retrial. But, in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution amending the existing ones, would not any such legislation be liable to be struck down under art VI clause 2 of the Constitution?
[This post has now been picked up in a news item on Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
Because I shall be on duty at Gannaga Lodge for the next few days, it is unlikely that there will be further blog posts before Sunday, 24 July.]
As I said in a blog post on 6 March 2011:
"The United States Government, along with that of the United Kingdom, proposed the UN Security Council resolutions that set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist. Both governments thereby undertook internationally binding obligations to comply with the legal processes thus set in motion. The United States cannot lawfully renounce those obligations either unilaterally or in conjunction with whatever new government it chooses to recognise in Libya. To have Abdelbaset Megrahi lawfully handed over to the US would require a further UN Security Council resolution. The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council could, of course, propose such a resolution. But would the other members support it? The US could also, naturally, simply ignore international legality (as it did, with the UK's supine support, in launching the invasion of Iraq) and seize Megrahi by force (with or without the connivance of a new Libyan regime)."
Furthermore, the Constitution of the United States, provides (art VI, clause 2): "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". This means that the binding international obligation entered into by the United States in respect of the Lockerbie trial precludes any US court from trying Megrahi since that would be a breach of the international agreement regarding Lockerbie jurisdiction which the US itself co-sponsored.
Moreover, during the Camp Zeist trial, US government lawyers sat amongst the prosecutors and when their presence was questioned the Crown Office responded that the Lord Advocate could select whomsoever he chose to form part of the prosecution team. It can be strongly argued that this active participation by United States officials, as part of the prosecution team, in a trial which the US co-sponsored, personally bars (estops) the US from instituting its own national criminal proceedings.
As mentioned above, the US could sponsor a new UN Security Council resolution permitting it to retry Megrahi. But is there any realistic prospect of such a resolution being passed? The United States could also seek to pass internal US legislation permitting a retrial. But, in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution amending the existing ones, would not any such legislation be liable to be struck down under art VI clause 2 of the Constitution?
[This post has now been picked up in a news item on Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.
Because I shall be on duty at Gannaga Lodge for the next few days, it is unlikely that there will be further blog posts before Sunday, 24 July.]
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
US ambassador repeats "try Megrahi" nonsense
[An interview with the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, Stephen Rapp, published today on The Guardian website, contains the following:]
On Libya, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues confirmed that Washington is interested in bringing the former Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to trial for his role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in 1988.
Megrahi, who was convicted in Scotland, was returned to Libya from the UK on grounds of ill health in 2009.
"The majority of those [on the Pan Am flight] were US citizens and there's a strong interest in the US to achieve justice. It was an act of terror.
"There's jurisdiction in the UK and US over individuals who were involved. I can't speak for the [US] department of justice, but there would be an interest in the US … in continuing the investigation and going beyond Mr Megrahi and determining whether other individuals [were involved]."
[As I have written elsewhere on this blog: "Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it."]
On Libya, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues confirmed that Washington is interested in bringing the former Libyan intelligence officer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to trial for his role in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 above Lockerbie in 1988.
Megrahi, who was convicted in Scotland, was returned to Libya from the UK on grounds of ill health in 2009.
"The majority of those [on the Pan Am flight] were US citizens and there's a strong interest in the US to achieve justice. It was an act of terror.
"There's jurisdiction in the UK and US over individuals who were involved. I can't speak for the [US] department of justice, but there would be an interest in the US … in continuing the investigation and going beyond Mr Megrahi and determining whether other individuals [were involved]."
[As I have written elsewhere on this blog: "Megrahi has already faced trial and been convicted -- wrongly, in my view -- in a process supported by the United States. He could not be tried again in the USA unless Federal Law were changed to allow it."]
General Magnus Malan
The obituary in The Telegraph of General Magnus Malan, South Africa's defence minister at the time of the Lockerbie disaster, who died on 18 July, can be read here. That in the Cape Times can be read here. The controversy over whether a South African delegation to the United Nations, including Malan, was initially booked on Pan Am 103 but transferred onto an earlier flight to New York is explored in blog posts and comments that can be read here and by typing "Magnus Malan" into the blog's Google search facility.
[Yesterday, for the first time in a month, this blog was accessed from within Libya.]
[Yesterday, for the first time in a month, this blog was accessed from within Libya.]
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Blame Iran, not Libya, for Pan Am Flight 103 bombing
[This is the headline over an article by Arthur F Bethea published today on the website of the Massachusetts newspaper South Coast Today. It reads as follows:]
In a late June press conference, President Obama said that Col Gadhafi, "prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet."
Ignoring George Bush's needless invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of more than 4,400 US soldiers, Obama linked Gadhafi and bin Laden to deceive less-informed viewers into thinking that the two are one and the same. They aren't. In 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against bin Laden, and Gadhafi condemned 9/11. An enemy of bin Laden, Gadhafi opposes radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Obama was also alluding to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that murdered 189 Americans. This indirect smearing is reminiscent of Bush, who implied falsely (but never directly asserted) that Saddam sponsored 9/11. If Obama wants to accuse Gadhafi of Lockerbie, he should man up and state the charge directly.
Many people assume that Gadhafi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing because a Libyan intelligence officer (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi) was eventually convicted. What few Americans know is that the trial's fairness has been convincingly disputed. Key witnesses appear to have been paid for their testimony, evidence may have been fabricated, one crucial witness has admitted to perjury, and the witness who identified Megrahi has had his reliability attacked by the prosecutor who brought the original charges.
A former professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, Robert Black, said, "No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted" Megrahi. The conviction was "an absolute disgrace and outrage." Megrahi is "an innocent man."
Some readers will protest, "But Gadhafi paid damages; he must be guilty." Yes, Libya paid more than $2.5 billion in reparations, but, according to one source, sanctions had cost the country $30 billion. Saif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son and former heir apparent, explained, "We wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees," but this "doesn't mean that we did it in fact." "What can you do?" he asked. "Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Compelling evidence implicates Iran in the Lockerbie bombing. Thinking it was about to be attacked by a fighter jet, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus in July 1988, killing 290 people, most of them Iranians. Iran's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeini, promised that the skies would rain with American blood. Iran offered a huge reward for revenge; a Palestinian terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, apparently accepted the offer; and 5½ months after the Vincennes disaster, 189 Americans were murdered.
A senior CIA officer in 1988, Robert Baer, worked the case from the start and concluded that Iran sponsored the bombing. According to Baer, now retired from the CIA, financial records indicate that Iran transferred $11 million to the Swiss bank account of the PFLP-GC two days after the bombing. Obviously, if Iran did transfer $11 million to a Palestinian terrorist group two days after the atrocity, this is overwhelming evidence of Iranian involvement. England's Sunday Herald said it saw the "CIA paperwork that supports" Baer's claims.
In 2009, Baer told England's Sunday Mail that the CIA had "hard evidence" of Iranian involvement "almost from the moment the plane exploded."
Another American intelligence organization also linked the bombing to Iran. A September 1989 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency states: "The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran's former interior minister."
There are many good reasons to oppose Obama's Libyan adventure but no good ones [to support it], including false revenge for Lockerbie.
In a late June press conference, President Obama said that Col Gadhafi, "prior to Osama bin Laden, was responsible for more American deaths than just about anybody on the planet."
Ignoring George Bush's needless invasion of Iraq that led to the deaths of more than 4,400 US soldiers, Obama linked Gadhafi and bin Laden to deceive less-informed viewers into thinking that the two are one and the same. They aren't. In 1998, Libya issued the first official Interpol arrest warrant against bin Laden, and Gadhafi condemned 9/11. An enemy of bin Laden, Gadhafi opposes radical Islamic fundamentalism.
Obama was also alluding to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that murdered 189 Americans. This indirect smearing is reminiscent of Bush, who implied falsely (but never directly asserted) that Saddam sponsored 9/11. If Obama wants to accuse Gadhafi of Lockerbie, he should man up and state the charge directly.
Many people assume that Gadhafi is guilty of the Lockerbie bombing because a Libyan intelligence officer (Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi) was eventually convicted. What few Americans know is that the trial's fairness has been convincingly disputed. Key witnesses appear to have been paid for their testimony, evidence may have been fabricated, one crucial witness has admitted to perjury, and the witness who identified Megrahi has had his reliability attacked by the prosecutor who brought the original charges.
A former professor of Scottish law at Edinburgh University, Robert Black, said, "No reasonable tribunal, on the evidence heard at the original trial, should or could have convicted" Megrahi. The conviction was "an absolute disgrace and outrage." Megrahi is "an innocent man."
Some readers will protest, "But Gadhafi paid damages; he must be guilty." Yes, Libya paid more than $2.5 billion in reparations, but, according to one source, sanctions had cost the country $30 billion. Saif al-Islam, Gadhafi's son and former heir apparent, explained, "We wrote a letter to the Security Council saying we are responsible for the acts of our employees," but this "doesn't mean that we did it in fact." "What can you do?" he asked. "Without writing that letter we would not be able to get rid of sanctions."
Compelling evidence implicates Iran in the Lockerbie bombing. Thinking it was about to be attacked by a fighter jet, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus in July 1988, killing 290 people, most of them Iranians. Iran's religious dictator, the Ayatollah Khomeini, promised that the skies would rain with American blood. Iran offered a huge reward for revenge; a Palestinian terrorist organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, apparently accepted the offer; and 5½ months after the Vincennes disaster, 189 Americans were murdered.
A senior CIA officer in 1988, Robert Baer, worked the case from the start and concluded that Iran sponsored the bombing. According to Baer, now retired from the CIA, financial records indicate that Iran transferred $11 million to the Swiss bank account of the PFLP-GC two days after the bombing. Obviously, if Iran did transfer $11 million to a Palestinian terrorist group two days after the atrocity, this is overwhelming evidence of Iranian involvement. England's Sunday Herald said it saw the "CIA paperwork that supports" Baer's claims.
In 2009, Baer told England's Sunday Mail that the CIA had "hard evidence" of Iranian involvement "almost from the moment the plane exploded."
Another American intelligence organization also linked the bombing to Iran. A September 1989 memo from the Defense Intelligence Agency states: "The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorized and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran's former interior minister."
There are many good reasons to oppose Obama's Libyan adventure but no good ones [to support it], including false revenge for Lockerbie.
Monday, 18 July 2011
Libyan foreign minister admits Lockerbie bombing involvement
[This is the headline over a report published this evening on The Telegraph website. It amplifies the AFP news agency report that was the subject of the immediately preceding blog post. The report reads in part:]
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.
"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague [RB: Actually, of course, Camp Zeist, near Utrecht] under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009.
Libya always denied involvement, and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group.
Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former minister of justice who defected at the beginning of the uprising against the Gaddafi regime in February and is now chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council, claimed in an earlier interview that Col Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.
But Mr Abdul Jalil was only involved in politics from 2007, having been a provincial judge most of his career. Mr Shalgham, by contrast, was Libyan ambassador to Rome at the time of the bombing and later at the heart of government.
[See my comment at the end of the preceding blog post.]
A former Libyan foreign minister has admitted the country was involved in the Lockerbie bombing but said for the first time it was part of a wider conspiracy.
The former minister, Abdul Rahman al-Shalgham, who was ambassador to the United Nations when he defected in February, revealed a new theory about who was responsible for the explosion on board Pan-Am Flight 103 in an interview with an Arabic newspaper.
"The Lockerbie bombing was a complex and tangled operation" he said, when asked to describe the background to the disaster.
"There was talk at the time of the roles played by states and organisations. Libyan security played a part but I believe it was not a strictly Libyan operation."
He went on to say that the compensation payment to the families he helped negotiate on behalf of the regime – while disclaiming responsibility – angered the Libyan leader, Col Muammar Gaddafi.
"He used to say, 'We had no role in Lockerbie, so why should we have to pay compensation'," Mr Shalgham said.
Two Libyan state employees were put on trial in The Hague [RB: Actually, of course, Camp Zeist, near Utrecht] under Scottish law for the bombing of Flight 103, in which 270 people died in 1988. One, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, though he was released on medical grounds in 2009.
Libya always denied involvement, and alternative theories state that it was the work of Iranian intelligence, or a Palestinian terrorist group.
Mr Shalgham's revelations are the first serious suggestion that there could be elements of truth to both stories.
Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the former minister of justice who defected at the beginning of the uprising against the Gaddafi regime in February and is now chairman of the opposition Transitional National Council, claimed in an earlier interview that Col Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing.
But Mr Abdul Jalil was only involved in politics from 2007, having been a provincial judge most of his career. Mr Shalgham, by contrast, was Libyan ambassador to Rome at the time of the bombing and later at the heart of government.
[See my comment at the end of the preceding blog post.]
Ex-foreign minister says Libya behind 1989 airline attack
[This is the headline over an Agence France Presse news agency report published today on the Al-Arabiya website. It reads as follows:]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
On September 19, 1989, a UTA DC-10 travelling from Brazzaville to Paris via N’Djamena crashed in Niger after explosives on board detonated, killing 170 passengers and crew, including 54 French citizens.
A French court in 2009 sentenced six Libyan agents in absentia to life in prison for the attack, but Libya has never admitted it was responsible.
However, Tripoli had in 2004 agreed to pay $170 million in compensation to the families of the victims.
Mr Shalgam also said that the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie that killed 270 people, for which Libya is widely believed to have been responsible, was more complicated than the UTA attack.
“The Lockerbie operation was more complex ... the role of states and organizations has been discussed, and while the Libyan services were implicated, I do not think it was a purely Libyan operation,” he said.
Last February, a former official from the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal said that the attacks against the Pan Am and UTA planes were conducted “in conjunction” with Libya, and that the explosives were fabricated in Libya.
Mr Shalgam’s defection came in March when he was serving as Libya’s representative to the United Nations.
[Whether Libya was involved in the destruction of Pan Am 103 or not (eg by supplying materials to the culprits) it does not follow that a particular Libyan, viz Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was involved. The evidence against him remains just as weak as it was before Mr Shalgam spoke and the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist remains just as outrageous.
I may say that Mr Shalgam, whom I met on several occasions while he was Libya's foreign minister, always denied to me that his country was responsible for Lockerbie. But it may be that he is one of those who tends to tell people what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that they want to hear.]
Sunday, 17 July 2011
New doubts over crucial evidence in Lockerbie trial
[This is the headline over an article by John Ashton in today's edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]
A prosecution expert misled judges at the Lockerbie trial about key evidence, according to a classified police memo obtained by the Sunday Herald.
Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the Scottish border town on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
The trial of the two Libyan men accused of the bombing began in May 2000, in front of a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. During the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, an expert witness for the prosecution, testified that a fragment allegedly from the bomb’s timer had not been tested for explosive residues.
However, according to the memo, tests were in fact carried out – and proved negative.
The revelation comes as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee prepares to consider calls for a public inquiry into the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Campaigners believe he was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and accuse the police and Crown Office of concealing evidence that might have cleared him.
Forensic evidence suggested that the fragment, known as PT/35, was part of a timer supplied to Libyan intelligence by the Swiss company Mebo. Mebo’s offices were shared by a company co-owned by Megrahi.
According to the prosecution, the timer and the explosive were hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which Megrahi packed into a suitcase along with clothing.
Hayes was employed by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE), linked to the UK Ministry of Defence. Scientists from the RARDE were involved in examining material found at the Lockerbie crash scene.
Hayes told the trial in June 2000 that he did not test PT/35, or a fragment of Toshiba circuit board, for explosive residues because it was clear from their appearance that they were bomb-damaged.
He added that the chances of finding residues were “vanishingly small”, but acknowledged that residues had been found on pieces of aircraft debris, and that test results for other items were not disclosed.
A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”.
It is not known whether Hayes knew of the tests alluded to in the memo, and there is no suggestion that he deliberately misled the court. Henderson did not testify at the trial, and there is no suggestion that he acted improperly.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP and convener of the Justice Committee, said yesterday: “This adds to the growing body of evidence that Megrahi’s conviction, if it was placed before the appeal court today, would not stand the test of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Calls for a public enquiry have been led by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi. Group member Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: “At the end of Megrahi’s trial, PT/35 stood out for me as being shrouded in a cloud of anomalies. Everything that I’ve learned since then has added to my suspicion that there was something very wrong.”
The trial court heard that Hayes found the fragment in May 1989 in the collar of a blast-damaged shirt. However, his laboratory notes and the collar’s police evidence label were inexplicably altered, and other official documents gave the date of discovery as January 1990.
Hayes’s employer, the RARDE, was involved in a string of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, Hayes and senior colleagues were criticised by former appeal court judge Sir John May in his report on the Maguire Seven case, in which individuals had been charged with handling explosives linked to the IRA. Sir John said they knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court.
After seeing PT/35, Mebo’s owner, Edwin Bollier, said it was from a prototype circuit board that was never part of a functioning timer.
The police memo was one of hundreds of documents appended to the 800-page report into Megrahi’s conviction produced by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, its potential significance was apparently overlooked.
The Crown Office would not comment directly on the memo. In a joint statement with Dumfries and Galloway Police, which led the Lockerbie investigation, it said: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously … following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges in an appeal court.”
[The flaws in the Zeist trial and the strictly circumscribed nature of the appeal are described in my article Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result.]
A prosecution expert misled judges at the Lockerbie trial about key evidence, according to a classified police memo obtained by the Sunday Herald.
Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over the Scottish border town on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people.
The trial of the two Libyan men accused of the bombing began in May 2000, in front of a Scottish court set up in the Netherlands. During the trial, Dr Thomas Hayes, an expert witness for the prosecution, testified that a fragment allegedly from the bomb’s timer had not been tested for explosive residues.
However, according to the memo, tests were in fact carried out – and proved negative.
The revelation comes as the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee prepares to consider calls for a public inquiry into the conviction in 2001 of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Campaigners believe he was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, and accuse the police and Crown Office of concealing evidence that might have cleared him.
Forensic evidence suggested that the fragment, known as PT/35, was part of a timer supplied to Libyan intelligence by the Swiss company Mebo. Mebo’s offices were shared by a company co-owned by Megrahi.
According to the prosecution, the timer and the explosive were hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player which Megrahi packed into a suitcase along with clothing.
Hayes was employed by the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment (RARDE), linked to the UK Ministry of Defence. Scientists from the RARDE were involved in examining material found at the Lockerbie crash scene.
Hayes told the trial in June 2000 that he did not test PT/35, or a fragment of Toshiba circuit board, for explosive residues because it was clear from their appearance that they were bomb-damaged.
He added that the chances of finding residues were “vanishingly small”, but acknowledged that residues had been found on pieces of aircraft debris, and that test results for other items were not disclosed.
A previously secret memo, dated April 3, 1990, describes a visit to the Lockerbie investigation by French police officers examining the 1989 bombing of a French airliner in Niger. The memo states that Detective Superintendent Stuart Henderson, senior investigating officer, told the French delegation “that the piece of PCB [printed circuit board] from the Toshiba [cassette player] bore no trace of explosive contamination and that this was due to the total consummation of the explosive material. Similarly with PT/35, the item was negative in regard to explosive traces”.
It is not known whether Hayes knew of the tests alluded to in the memo, and there is no suggestion that he deliberately misled the court. Henderson did not testify at the trial, and there is no suggestion that he acted improperly.
Christine Grahame, SNP MSP and convener of the Justice Committee, said yesterday: “This adds to the growing body of evidence that Megrahi’s conviction, if it was placed before the appeal court today, would not stand the test of being proven beyond reasonable doubt.”
Calls for a public enquiry have been led by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi. Group member Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the Lockerbie bombing, said yesterday: “At the end of Megrahi’s trial, PT/35 stood out for me as being shrouded in a cloud of anomalies. Everything that I’ve learned since then has added to my suspicion that there was something very wrong.”
The trial court heard that Hayes found the fragment in May 1989 in the collar of a blast-damaged shirt. However, his laboratory notes and the collar’s police evidence label were inexplicably altered, and other official documents gave the date of discovery as January 1990.
Hayes’s employer, the RARDE, was involved in a string of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1990, Hayes and senior colleagues were criticised by former appeal court judge Sir John May in his report on the Maguire Seven case, in which individuals had been charged with handling explosives linked to the IRA. Sir John said they knew of evidence pointing to the innocence of the accused yet failed to inform the court.
After seeing PT/35, Mebo’s owner, Edwin Bollier, said it was from a prototype circuit board that was never part of a functioning timer.
The police memo was one of hundreds of documents appended to the 800-page report into Megrahi’s conviction produced by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, its potential significance was apparently overlooked.
The Crown Office would not comment directly on the memo. In a joint statement with Dumfries and Galloway Police, which led the Lockerbie investigation, it said: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court. Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously … following trial and his conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges in an appeal court.”
[The flaws in the Zeist trial and the strictly circumscribed nature of the appeal are described in my article Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result.]
Saturday, 16 July 2011
Lockerbie: Diplomat's wife hears a different story
[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday on the Sedulia's Quotations website. It reads as follows:]
A curious thing happened in the Gambia which I have often thought about since. Very soon after the Lockerbie disaster, an ex-Interpol detective came to dinner with us. He was in the Gambia investigating some kind of fisheries fraud for the EU. Over the meal we discussed Lockerbie and he said, "Oh it will all come out soon. That plane was carrying drugs to the US as part of a deal over the American hostages in Lebanon." He went on to tell us that in order for the drugs to get through unimpeded it was arranged that the cargo in the Pan Am plane would not be inspected. What happened then, he said, was that, via the Lebanese/Hezbollah/Iran connection, the extraordinary fact that the plane's cargo would travel unchecked, came to the ears of Iranians seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the US not long before; somehow they arranged to put a bomb on board.
Though the detective said that this story would be all over the papers in the following months, it never was. I have told it to every journalist I know, but no paper has ever taken it up -- although there was a book published years ago called The Octopus Trail [The Trail of the Octopus, by Donald Goddard and Lester Coleman] which told more or less the same tale. Last year, not long before he died, I happened to tell Paul Foot the story and he urged me not to let it lie-- which is why I am putting it into this book.
-- Brigid Keenan (1939- ), Diplomatic Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005).
[This Lockerbie theory was, of course, also advanced by Juval Aviv in his Interfor Report. More about Aviv can be found by entering his name in the blog's search facility.]
A curious thing happened in the Gambia which I have often thought about since. Very soon after the Lockerbie disaster, an ex-Interpol detective came to dinner with us. He was in the Gambia investigating some kind of fisheries fraud for the EU. Over the meal we discussed Lockerbie and he said, "Oh it will all come out soon. That plane was carrying drugs to the US as part of a deal over the American hostages in Lebanon." He went on to tell us that in order for the drugs to get through unimpeded it was arranged that the cargo in the Pan Am plane would not be inspected. What happened then, he said, was that, via the Lebanese/Hezbollah/Iran connection, the extraordinary fact that the plane's cargo would travel unchecked, came to the ears of Iranians seeking revenge for the shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by the US not long before; somehow they arranged to put a bomb on board.
Though the detective said that this story would be all over the papers in the following months, it never was. I have told it to every journalist I know, but no paper has ever taken it up -- although there was a book published years ago called The Octopus Trail [The Trail of the Octopus, by Donald Goddard and Lester Coleman] which told more or less the same tale. Last year, not long before he died, I happened to tell Paul Foot the story and he urged me not to let it lie-- which is why I am putting it into this book.
-- Brigid Keenan (1939- ), Diplomatic Baggage: The Adventures of a Trailing Spouse (2005).
[This Lockerbie theory was, of course, also advanced by Juval Aviv in his Interfor Report. More about Aviv can be found by entering his name in the blog's search facility.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)