Lockerbie and how victims forgave

[This is the headline over an article by Rob Virtue published today on the Wharf.co.uk website.  It reads as follows:]

A father who lost his daughter in the Lockerbie disaster was in Canary Wharf to talk about how he forgave those responsible for the attack and then backed calls to compensate east London victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism.

The Rev John Mosey was speaking at St Peter's Barge on West India Quay last week.

He recalled the day of the terrorist attack on the Pan Am flight over Scotland in 1988. He said when he and his family saw it unfold on television he had no idea his 19-year-old daughter Helga was on the plane.

"I remember saying how awful this was," he said. "We're usually observers in other people's disasters - it doesn't happen to us. But sometimes it does.

"Then they said the flight number which meant little to me but my wife said 'that's Helga's plane'.

"The silence was broken by my son shouting 'no, no, no' at the television and my wife just saying 'Helga, Helga, Helga'.

"She said at the time when her little girl needed her the most she couldn't be there for her."

He soon gave his forgiveness to those responsible - although he has strong doubts the man tried, sentenced and subsequently released, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was anything more than a fall guy.

Mr Mosey later received compensation as part of a package the United States agreed with the Libyan state. 

Most of his settlement has been used to set up charities in Helga's name and these are present in 12 countries.

He is now calling on victims of the IRA, which Gaddafi supplied Semtex to for explosives, to also be compensated by the Libyan state. [RB:  Here is a clarification from John Mosey: "His claim that I called for Libya to compensate other victims is false. What I said was that I thought it would be a good thing if such victims were compensated by the perpetrators."]

These include those affected by the South Quay bombing of 1996, which killed two and seriously injured dozens more.

"People who are guilty of terrorist acts should pay compensation," he said. "It doesn't take away the pain or bring anyone back, it's a distraction in a way, but it brings good out of evil.

"We have set up groups such as a children's home in the Philippines. Social services there said if we weren't around, many of the children would be dead.

"The way I see it is we've got lots of daughters around the world that would be dead today if Helga was still alive. Some good can come of tragedy."

Talks are progressing with the transitional government in Libya to secure compensation for IRA victims following the state's past sponsorship of Irish terrorism.

The latest developments were discussed in a debate in the House of Lords [on 4 October].

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Lord Howell of Guildford said: "The National Transitional Council's chairman, Abdul Jalil, and Prime Minister [Mahmoud] Jibril have assured the Government they will work with the UK to resolve bilateral issues arising from the wrongs of the Gaddafi regime."

Lord Howell said a memorandum of understanding for compensation, signed by Jalil earlier this year, formed a "basis of future work".

It followed a question from Lord Empey about the progress of talks.

Lord Empey said: "What is required now is a vigorous and determined approach by the Government to ensure that this matter is resolved, and that United Kingdom citizens who have suffered as a direct result of what was nothing short of an act of war by the then Libyan regime can be properly compensated."

Lockerbie and legal malpractice

When I came across an item with the above heading during a blog search, I thought it might contain something interesting and relevant to the Zeist trial of Megrahi which, in my view (and, to a certain extent, that of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission as well), involved quite a bit of legal malpractice.  However, it relates instead to a civil action by one US Lockerbie relative in a Federal Court in New York against Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, the law firm that represented most of the relatives in their claims against Libya. And the civil action did not relate to the firm's conduct in representing its Lockerbie clients in those claims. The action was in any event dismissed on the issue of time bar, the plaintiff having delayed too long in raising the case.

Case against Megrahi ‘flimsy’

[This is the headline over an article published today on the Holyrood website.  It reads as follows:]

If the only man ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing had been tried in a Scottish court he may not have been found guilty, according to former Middle East envoy Terry Waite. [RB: Megrahi was, of course, convicted in a Scottish court, albeit one that sat in the Netherlands. Presumably Mr Waite means a Scottish court sitting in Scotland with a jury; in which case he is correct.  Such a court would almost certainly not have convicted Megrahi.]

 

Waite, who spent five years in captivity in Beirut at the hands of Islamic Jihad, said the uproar triggered by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds has overshadowed the need for an investigation into whether or not he is guilty.

The former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury said the merits of the conviction are questionable.

He said: “The Megrahi case is extraordinarily complex and I don’t for one moment blame members of the public for being confused about it because even those who have tried to study the issue have been confused.

“The answer most people come up with in the end is we don’t really think we have the whole truth here, the true facts of this matter have not been revealed yet I think that is the general view.

“My own view is when I have tried to study the case, it seems the evidence on which he was convicted was very thin indeed and flimsy.

“It is doubtful whether in a Scottish court that man would have been convicted of that crime based on the evidence that was at Camp Zeist.” 

Megrahi was released from Greenock prison two years ago on compassionate grounds because he has terminal prostate cancer.

He is the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people.

Waite added: “The decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds was not an easy decision to make because it was mired in political controversy.

 “He [Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill] took a very courageous decision. But, I think more importantly, we still have to hear the full facts in this matter and one would hope that things will come out and we shall know more about this very distressing case.” 

The SNP last week accused former Prime Minister Tony Blair of being “economical with the truth” after claiming Megrahi had been excluded from the prisoner transfer agreement signed by his government and the previous Gaddafi regime when he left office in 2007.

[Terry Waite's remarks were made in connection with his 2011 SACRO Lecure delivered in Edinburgh on 4 October 2011.

This item has been picked up in a news report in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, which also quotes from a letter sent to the Crown Office by Dr Jim Swire seeking clarification about the Megrahi Reuters interview and whether access to it had truly been sought and, as some reports say, denied.]

Libya and Lockerbie: A questioned past, an uncertain future

[This is the heading over an item posted today on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide.  It reads in part:]

My two big thoughts on Lockerbie these days are:

1) It's odd how even the new government is willing to cause some friction with its European sponsors to insist the Lockerbie case is closed and no one's going to be re-tried or re-jailed. The oil is negotiable, and resistant loyalists can be slaughtered on sight, but apparently handing Mr al-Megrahi back to the Brits or anyone else is such a sore spot that they'd better not try it.

2) With no Gaddafi regime left to hang the crime on, and Iran coming into the limelight again, along with its proxy Syria, the truth may be allowed to emerge now of the Iranian-Syrian(?)-PFLP-GCplot that actually did destroy Pan Am 103. It would be for all the wrong reasons, however - mainly to "justify" the next regime change project(s) of an increasingly bold and desperate grab for the world's oil reserves.

Anyway, on the justifications for destoying Libya this year, old and new, I have discovered a prominent ally. I recently ran across a video interview, in French, with Yves Bonnet, a French terrorism expert and former high counter-terror official [RB: Director of the DST, 1982-1985].  From the text summary of the September 1 [2009] interview, and what I can make out, he's explaining how Gaddafi's Libya wasn't so bad from a terrorism point of view, and didn't do Lockerbie, at least. I can make out the name Ahmed Jibril being mentioned.

Bonnet is a co-founder of CIRET-AVT (International Center for Research and Study on Terrorism and Aid to Victims of Terrorism), along with a Belgian parliamentarian and a former Algerian government minister. With this intriguing genesis, CIRET-AVT has gone on to do unusually brilliant things. Along with another group (CF2R - Center for Research on Intelligence), they wrote a rare, really good report on the Libyan Civil War and the "uncertain future" of the country after the violent, NATO-backed Islamist uprising there (see "Un Avenir Incertain" in Libya)

Unlike most who traveled to Libya on fact-finding missions, their team actually talked with Tripoli and took them seriously, allowing their report to wind up making sense.

Crown Office blame Reuters for blocking Megrahi tape release: Reuters say they were not asked

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm.  It reads as follows:]

The Crown Office is once again at the centre of a row over its handling of the Pan Am 103 case after it accused the Reuters news agency of refusing to hand over a copy of an interview with Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

The interview has been at the centre of a translation row after different claims of the meaning of Megrahi's words were interpreted.

Relatives have told The Firm that they were working to secure access to the unedited interview. The Firm understands the UK relatives group have been told a declarator from the court is required. 

The issue has taken a bizarre twist after the Crown Office claimed that the Reuters news agency has refused to release its interview. The news agency has refuted the claim and says they have not been asked to provide the footage.

“We can confirm that Reuters have refused to provide a copy of the recent interview with Megrahi," the Crown Office claimed.

"We have instructed translation of the available footage meantime and are considering options in relation to the unreleased footage.”

However the Reuters news agency said the agency has not been asked to provide the footage at all.

 

"Reuters has been contacted by Dumfries and Galloway Police, but has not received a formal demand for any footage," the agency said.

"We will review any such formal request if we receive one."

Professor Robert Black QC previously accused the Crown Office of an "obstructionist wheeze" by protracting Megrahi's appeal process.

Former father of the House Tam Dalyell went further, accusing the organisation of suppressing information and telling "outright lies".

In 2009, current Justice Committee Convener Christine Grahame reported Crown Agent Norman MacFadyen to Lothian and Borders police amidst claims of improper handling of the evidence in the case.

It emerged earlier this year that the key witness in the Crown case had been bribed to provide his testimony linking Megrahi to the events of 21 December 1988.

Relatives denied access to Megrahi tapes

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the HeraldScotland website. It reads as follows:]

The Lord Advocate and the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing have been refused access to the latest interview with the man convicted of the atrocity.

Following the Reuters interview with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, he was accused of admitting his guilt for the first time by saying his name had been “exaggerated” by the West.

A number of Arabic translators have disagreed with this interpretation. In the midst of the row the Crown formally asked Dumfries and Galloway Police to obtain and translate the full Arabic interview. 

Relatives have also asked for the recording but have been told they would require a court order. There are edited clips on the news organisation’s website. This is the first full interview with Megrahi since The Herald interviewed him in Tripoli two years ago.

Megrahi says he played no part in the tragedy which killed 270 people in 1988. 

A Crown Office spokesman said: “We can confirm that Reuters have refused to provide a copy of the recent interview with Megrahi. We have instructed translation of the available footage meantime and are considering options in relation to the unreleased footage.” 

A spokeswoman for Reuters said: “Reuters has been contacted by Dumfries and Galloway Police, but has not received a formal demand for any footage. 

“We will review any such formal request if we receive one, although we would point out that Reuters footage from the interview with Abdelbaset al Megrahi and additional reporting are available for all to view on Reuters.com.
  
“As one of the world’s leading news organisations, Reuters takes integrity and accuracy of its news reporting very seriously and we stand by our coverage of the exclusive interview with Abdelbaset al Megrahi.”

Blair challenged over claims Megrahi was 'excluded’ from Prisoner Transfer Agreement

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday evening on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads as follows (links omitted):]

Tony Blair’s version of events over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement he hatched with Colonel Gaddafi has been challenged after he claimed that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had been “specifically excluded” from the secret deal.

The Scottish National Party has today accused the former Prime Minister of being “economical with the truth” after Mr Blair claimed in a New York Times interview that Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi was “specifically excluded” from the “prisoner transfer programme” when he left office. 

Asked about a series of visits he made to Libya in order to speak with the former dictator Muammar Gaddafi and whether he had been seeking the release of Megrahi the former Labour leader replied:

“This really is objectionable.  When I was British prime minister, when I left office, Megrahi was specifically excluded from the prisoner transfer program.  In any event he wasn’t released under that.”

Mr Blair added: “Everyone is always saying, “Didn’t the Libyans ever raise it.”  In fact they were always raising it, and I was always explaining the same thing to them which is there’s nothing that can be done about it.  You have to go to the Scottish executive, not the British government.”

In fact, the Prisoner Transfer Agreement was not in place when Mr Blair left office.  Correspondence between the Scottish and UK government’s indicate that a pledge from the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer to the Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in June 2007 that “any Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya could not cover Mr al-Megrahi” was never honoured.

A letter from Lord Chancellor Jack Straw in December 2007 subsequently confirmed that “in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom”, Megrahi would not be excluded.

Mr Straw wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement.  I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.”

In all, the First Minister Alex Salmond and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill wrote to the UK Government on eight separate occasions – and as late as September 2008 – insisting that Megrahi should be excluded from the terms of the PTA.   However the UK Labour Government refused the requests because of trade and diplomatic factors with the Gaddafi regime.

Tony Blair’s claim that Mr Megrahi had been excluded from any PTA when he left office was further undermined when his former aide, who was with him at the time of the ‘Deal in the Desert’ John McTernan, claimed that al-Megrahi had indeed been part of the deal.

Speaking on Newsnight last summer, Mr McTernan said that the Libyan had been included in the deal in recognition of Gaddafi having given up nuclear weapons and that the British government would have been happy to see Megrahi sent back to Libya.

Commenting, SNP Westminster Leader and Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Angus Robertson MP said: “Not for the first time, Tony Blair has been caught out being economical with the truth.  The reality is that the Scottish Government repeatedly called on the UK Labour Government to exclude Megrahi from the terms of the PTA, but they reneged on their pledge to do so.  It is inconceivable that it would have been any different had Tony Blair remained in office.

“The fact is – as we know from Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report – that the UK Labour Government did ‘all it could’ to facilitate Megrahi’s release for reasons of trade and diplomacy with the Gaddafi regime.

“Just as Tony Blair was incapable of telling the truth about the invasion of Iraq, he is being extremely economical with the truth about Labour’s hypocrisy over Megrahi.”

Controversy has always surrounded Mr Blair’s now notorious ‘Deal in the Desert’ with Gaddafi.  In 2007 there was anger after details of the secret deal was made public by the then newly elected First Minister Alex Salmond.

The First Minister’s exposing of the secret negotiations between the British government and the former Libyan dictator led to an infamous spat between Mr Salmond and the BBC presenter Kirsty Wark.  The BBC were subsequently forced to issue an apology.

[The Herald's report on the matter can be read here.]

23 years after Lockerbie, a father fights on for justice

[This is the heading over an article by David Benson published in today's edition of the Belfast Telegraph.  It reads as follows:]

My last visit to the Queen's Festival was in 1997 with my show Think No Evil of Us: My Life With Kenneth Williams, and one might reasonably expect to be asked why a man best known for impersonating dead camp comedians should now be appearing in a drama of intense seriousness.

I was living in Edinburgh when the most deadly terrorist atrocity in post-war British history occurred. On December 21, 1988, I was working on the door of a nightclub earning £10-a-night when one of the bouncers wandered over and whispered that a Jumbo jet had gone down in the borders. Soon the city was buzzing with stories of devastation at the scene: the pretty, secluded border town of Lockerbie and the land for miles around strewn with the dead and their belongings, seat-belted corpses left for days in trees and on roofs or to be stepped over on garden paths.

Nearly 23 years later, the events surrounding that atrocity formed the basis of a one-man show that I wrote and performed at the 2010 Edinburgh Fringe and which I am privileged to be bringing to the Queen's Festival for one performance. The man whose story I tell is one touched as cruelly by the crime as it is possible to be. Dr Jim Swire's daughter, Flora McDonald Margaret Swire, was on Pan Am 103 from Heathrow to JFK the night before her 24th birthday.

Just before Christmas such flights are usually at capacity, but Flora was one of the unlucky recipients of a stroke of fortune: this flight had a substantial number of late cancellations; she was able to get a ticket for it at the last minute and so set off to spend the Christmas in New York with her boyfriend, Hart. 

Just 38 minutes after take-off, a bomb went off in the hold and the aircraft was lost, along with its 259 passengers and crew. Eleven people in Lockerbie were killed as the aircraft hit the ground.

The events are still fresh in the minds of everyone who lived through them. I performed the show earlier this year in the towns of Dumfries and Langholm, close to the heart of the catastrophe, and heard testimony from eye-witnesses in the audience.

A woman described seeing the fuselage crash with its jets still screaming as she washed her dishes; and how their cat, in its terror, tore round the walls of the living room like a motorcycle on a wall of death. There has since been a trial, a man was convicted of the crime, and compensation was paid to victims' families by the recently-overthrown Libyan regime. 

So why is Jim Swire still fighting so doggedly in his 76th year and in defiance of many who have begged him to 'retire' and let his daughter rest in peace?

Because, in his view, justice has not been done. In fact, anyone who examines the events of the trial in the Netherlands will see that the prosecution case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhima was laughable, a grotesque parade of paid witnesses, corrupt evidence and dodgy 'experts'.

Fhima was totally cleared of involvement and, since the prosecution case was built on the fantasy that the two accused had acted in concert, al-Megrahi should have been found not guilty, too. Instead, he was sentenced to 20 years in a Scottish jail, later increased to 27 years, all the time protesting his innocence. 

His release on 'compassionate' grounds was an opportunity for howls of manufactured outrage from politicians deeply relieved that the questions a second appeal would have raised would now, they hoped, never be asked. The findings of a three-year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which identified six major points suggesting a miscarriage of justice, would never be published and a largely compliant media would go on forever referring to al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie Bomber. 

But the controversy refuses to go away. A phony 'humanitarian' invasion of Libya is raging as I write, with defenceless civilians in Sirte and elsewhere, under siege by forces we are paying for, with the Lockerbie bombing persistently held up as part-justification for the carnage. 

In spite of the initial claims of Gaddafi regime members to have positive proof that he ordered the bombing, not a shred of evidence has been laid before our eyes. Meanwhile, Obama, Clinton and a nest of cynical senators in the USA repeatedly call for the dying al-Megrahi to be unhooked from his drips and oxygen mask to face a new, totally illegal trial in America, in spite of the fact that they accepted the verdict of the first. There is a special poignancy in bringing this play to a province whose people are no strangers to terrorism. To lose loved ones in criminal circumstances is to risk finding out how hard-hearted and cynical our guarantors of justice can be when the demands of truth run counter to the dark currents of Government business.

It cannot be easy for any politician to face a Jim Swire, or a Michael and Patsy Gallagher, or anyone motivated solely by finding the answer to the question: Who killed my beautiful child?

My play is an attempt to pay tribute to these reluctant, heroic campaigners and to show also what it costs them to pursue truth and justice, while retaining dignity, integrity and compassion - every virtue their tormentors lack.

Tony Blair: ‘They keep insinuating and I keep saying it’s not true’

[This is the headline over an item published today on The 6th Floor, a blog on the website of The New York Times. The author, Andrew Goldman, recently interviewed Tony Blair.  Here are a couple of the questions and answers:]

Q. The British press has been speculating a great deal about the fact that you visited Libya twice just weeks before the 2009 release of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and that you had something to do with achieving his freedom.

A. This really is objectionable. When I was British prime minister, when I left office, Megrahi was specifically excluded from the prisoner transfer program. In any event he wasn’t released under that. Everyone is always saying, “Didn’t the Libyans ever raise it.” In fact they were always raising it, and I was always explaining the same thing to them which is there’s nothing that can be done about it. You have to go to the Scottish executive, not the British government.

Q. So you see this as just another example of the British press’s distortions about you?

A. It’s not all of the British press. It’s a section of it. Whenever you read about me in the British media you want to look at your sources very carefully because there are certain papers that just write this stuff the whole time that simply isn’t true. It’s just ridiculous.

[I dispute the accuracy of Mr Blair's first answer.  As I have said elsewhere:

"The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" in May 2007, and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement, was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.

"It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that [it belatedly sunk in] that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh, and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away."

This blogpost has now (Tuesday morning) been picked up by Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm in a news item headed Blair's account of Megrahi release challenged.]

Megrahi says in book he was framed

[This is the headline over a report on page 7 of today's Scottish edition of The Sunday Times. It does not feature on the newspaper's website. The report reads in part:]

The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing claims he will produce evidence that will prove he was framed for Britain's worst terrorist atrocity.

A forthcoming book co-written by (...) Megrahi alleges that British and American authorities knew that a crucial piece of evidence linking Libya to the downing of Pan Am 103 was planted.

Documents obtained by his defence team are said to reveal that a fragment of electronic timer -- said to be part of the bomb -- was subjected to forensic testing before Megrahi's trial in 2000. The Libyan claims that the tests failed to detect explosive residues on the fragment but that this information was not revealed at his trial.

Sources close to Megrahi believe evidence of such tests would severely undermine the safety of his conviction.

At the Libyan's trial (...) forensic scientists testified that the fragment was part of a circuit board used as a trigger for the bomb. They stated it had not been tested for explosive residues. (...)

This evidence (...) helped to convict Megrahi. (...)

The Sunday Times has also seen unpublished British intelligence documents from 1989 revealing that the Scottish police were convinced that a barometric bomb -- triggered by altitude, not an electronic timer -- downed Pan Am 103.

Megrahi has been working with a British journalist on a book, the publication of which is imminent.

Sources close to the project said that in Megrahi: You Are My Jury, the Libyan reveals that forensic tests were conducted on the timer fragment. It suggests the fragment was not part of the Lockerbie bomb and adds weight to claims that it was "introduced" later to bolster the case against Megrahi. (...)

The timer fragment became a key plank in the case against Megrahi (...) It was claimed that months after the December 21 bombing (...) in 1988, a tiny piece of circuit board was found in a piece of clothing  about 25 miles away from Lockerbie. The prosecution successfully linked this fragment of circuit board, described as part of the bomb trigger, to Megrahi.

In an interview with Reuters last week, Megrahi sparked controversy after he was said to have claimed that the West had "exaggerated" his role in the Lockerbie bombing. It was seen as an admission that he played a role in the atrocity.

However, Arabic speakers said Megrahi actually described himself as "a very simple man" and that "the West made a great deal more of me".

The Crown Office has asked for an accurate translation of his comments to be made.

Knox deserved to go free – just like ‘Lockerbie Bomber’

[This is the heading over a section of conservative commentator Peter Hitchens's column in today's edition of the Mail on Sunday. The section reads as follows:]

As it happens, I don’t think the Italian state ever came close to proving beyond reasonable doubt that Amanda Knox was guilty of murder.  So, in a general way, I am pleased that she has been freed.

But compare the frenzy of interest over this rather unimportant case with the strange silence over the equally dubious – but far more important – conviction of the so-called Lockerbie Bomber, the Libyan Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

One of the key witnesses against him has since admitted to lying in court.

Another, described by a  senior judge as ‘an apple short of a picnic’, shockingly received a $2 million (£1.28 million) reward after giving evidence that many experts regard as highly dubious.

I suspect Megrahi’s release had more to do with the fear of a  final, successful appeal revealing inconvenient facts than it did with ­ British oil interests. If the US had wanted to stop him being freed, they could have. After all, they made us surrender to the IRA.

Confusion over Megrahi interview

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams published this evening on the HeraldScotland website. It reads as follows:]

The Crown Office has written to relatives of victims of the Lockerbie tragedy about allegations the man convicted of the bombing has somehow admitted his guilt.

According to a Reuters interview at the start of the week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi said: “The West exaggerated my name.” However, newspapers around the globe have quoted this to say that the West exaggerated his role. 

The Crown Office letter to relatives states: “We are aware that Megrahi is reported as having said that his role in the Lockerbie bombing was exaggerated. 

“Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have been instructed to obtain the whole interview. The translation will be checked for accuracy. As always, we will provide you with more information as soon as it is appropriate to do so and answer as many of your questions as we can.” 

Megrahi, released more than two years ago on compassionate grounds, has consistently denied involvement in the bombing. 

An academic from the University of St Andrews told The Herald yesterday that the translation was different to that reported.

Dina Al Afranji, a teaching fellow at the Arabic department in the School of Modern Languages at the university, said: “In this extract, Megrahi says: ‘I am a very simple man, and the West made a great deal more of me’.”

Reuters stood by its translation of the interview.

Trial by fury…

[This is the heading over an item posted late last night on bensix's Back Towards The Locus blog. It reads as follows:]

It always surprises me how poorly headlines can reflect the facts they purport to digest. I guess it shouldn’t, though. That’s not always their purpose. In yesterday’s Telegraph, for example, I saw the reader-seizing  headline…

Lockerbie bomber: my role in attack has been exaggerated

The Independent plumped for…

My role was exaggerated, says Lockerbie bomber

The implication is that Megrahi admitted to a role in the attack but not as large a one as has been claimed. In its editorial the Scotsman ran with this…

"…what he apparently said was the West 'exaggerated' his involvement – if so, hardly the ringing denial some of his apologists would have hoped for or expected. As has long been suspected, it seems to confirm his involvement at the very least as part of a team rather than a mastermind."

This, however, is the quote we’re given to support this theory…

"The West exaggerated my name."

This sounds ambiguous but the idea that it’s an admission of guilt is premised on a huge assumption. It asserts that he’s been made to seem like somebody he’s not – that, alone, isn’t an admission of anything; it’s merely a denial. The fact that he’s consistently maintained his innocence leads me to feel that if he’d own up to the crime he’d do it less vaguely. (And, besides, if he was complicit I doubt he’d have had a minor role – obviously I don’t know how the man’s brain works but then he could have surely owned up and received a shorter sentence.)

This quote may be relevant…

"In a few months from now, you will see new facts that will be announced."

This might be a reference to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report, which cast doubt on Megrahi’s prosecution and was set to be released last month.

I’m still drawing no conclusion as to what transpired in December 1988. Clearly, though, I’m a minority there.

'Labour connived to free Lockerbie bomber' says William Hague

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman.  It reads in part:]

William Hague has unleashed a fierce attack on the former Labour government, accusing it of "conniving" in the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

He also questioned its moral stance on the international stage, in an unusually harsh critique from a foreign secretary. (...)

Singling out the release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, Mr Hague added: "They connived in the release of the Lockerbie bomber. Two years ago we said the decision to release al-Megrahi was wrong, and now the whole world can see that we were right." (...)

Mr Hague's direct attack at Labour's stance on the Lockerbie bomber follows a report written by the country's most senior civil servant, Sir Gus O'Donnell, which concluded that the Labour government did "all it could" to help facilitate the release of Megrahi in 2009.

While there was no evidence to show they had actively lobbied the Scottish Government to free him, Sir Gus concluded there was an "underlying desire" to see him return to Libya.

He said the information showed UK ministers had changed their position on the transfer of Libyan prisoners due to commercial considerations, including lobbying by oil firm BP.

The Libyans have subsequently claimed Megrahi's fate was "on the table" in the infamous "deal in the desert" conducted by Tony Blair and Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2007.

In their defence, Mr Blair and former justice secretary Jack Straw have insisted that their dealings with the former Gaddafi regime helped to persuade him to end his weapons development programme.

He added: "As all the published documentation demonstrates, only the Scottish Government played with a straight bat on this matter."

Waite’s backing

[This is the headline over a short report published today on the HeraldScotland website.  It reads as follows:]

Terry Waite will put his name to Dr Jim Swire’s Justice for Megrahi petition calling for an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and Abdelbaset al Megrahi’s conviction.

The former hostage said the time is right for a case review. 

[The announcement was made in the course of Mr Waite's 2011 SACRO Lecture, delivered last night in Edinburgh.]