Salmond backs minister on Megrahi

[This is the headline over a report published this evening by The Press Association news agency.  It reads as follows:]

A Labour MSP was not "entitled" to ask whether ministers made it clear to the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing that he did not have to drop an appeal in order to be released on compassionate grounds, Alex Salmond has said.

In a statement to Holyrood on Wednesday, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill gave his absolute "assurance and word" that no-one in the Scottish Government or the Scottish Court Service put pressure on Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to withdraw his appeal against conviction.

Critics have insisted that, even if no pressure was applied, ministers should have made it clear to Megrahi that he did not have to drop his appeal to secure his release.

Speaking at First Minister's Questions, Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said: "Mr MacAskill and Mr Salmond have told us often since the event that the release of Mr al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds was not dependent on the withdrawal of his appeal.

"Can the First Minister tell us today if they ever made that clear to Mr al-Megrahi, and if so when?"

The First Minister replied: "You know, having totally failed to land a blow on the Justice Secretary yesterday, I don't think Lewis Macdonald is entitled to a rematch today. Kenny MacAskill made that absolutely clear yesterday. If he had thought up better questions yesterday perhaps he wouldn't be as frustrated today."

Mr MacAskill said in his statement "it was simply made clear (to Megrahi) that under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement... a prisoner transfer could not be considered while any proceedings were ongoing".

The prisoner transfer agreement was a separate process unrelated to compassionate release. Mr MacAskill did not say whether he made it clear that compassionate release could not be considered while any proceedings were ongoing.

Mr Macdonald suggested that Mr MacAskill left Megrahi "with the very clear impression that withdrawing the appeal was the prudent thing to do".

Speaking at the launch of the semi-autobiographical book Megrahi: You Are My Jury on Monday, author John Ashton said Mr MacAskill or his department "should have made it perfectly clear to Mr Megrahi that he did not have to drop his appeal".


[All very entertaining, of course. But when will Scottish politicians begin to address the real issue, namely the disgraceful conviction, rather than the compassionate release?]

We can’t keep pretending that Lockerbie is over

[This is the headline over an article (published on 28 February but which has just come to my attention) on the website of The Reid Foundation (a think tank established in memory of Jimmy Reid) by the foundation’s director, Robin McAlpine.  It reads in part:]

The tide in Lockerbie is around our ears; it is too late to play Canute, but there is just about time to lift up our heads.

I will admit that the Scottish legal system is not my area of expertise. I try hard to follow the key debates and manage to have some opinions on elements of change but I simply don’t have the tools to really investigate the state of our justice. I could tell there was something profoundly rotten it the Shirley McKie fingerprint case. There was just too much stonewall and not enough convincing argument, too many holes and too many people who simply didn’t buy it. I knew the second I heard it that the Scottish legal system was on the wrong side of the slopping out debate. Likewise on Cadder and the right to a lawyer (although I must admit to having some mixed opinions on that one).

On the other hand, I have absolutely no patience with the ‘it's not a proper legal system’ attitude that seems to be creeping into debate. (…)

But then we get to Lockerbie and it all falls apart. I remember the night it happened. Even then I wondered how it is that people could be speculating about who did it within days. How? Just a guess? Then the guess sort of changed (why?) and from that point even my untrained eye seemed to see a process of shoring up that guess.

I am no trial expert but everything I read of proceedings at Camp Zeist bothered me. As soon as I hear the words ‘secret service’ or ‘national security’ I assume that justice cannot be done. That doesn’t mean that the right person isn’t caught and convicted, just that they will not have a real chance to test the case. Witnesses get paid – can you imagine that in any other case? The CIA prompt people with answers, evidence is withheld, nods and winks seem to be taken as statements of fact. And the outcome seemed to me then and seems even more so today that Scottish justice was treated like a flexible concept with which to pursue international diplomacy and keep the spies spying.

I understand the pressures. What bothers me is not so much that we seem to have rented our principles out in return for a fast, easy conviction and an end to the messing around. What bothers me is that even though we must all know something is up, we keep holding to a line of defence. The Justice Secretary seems to have been told that there can be no deviation from the line that the conviction is safe. It looks to me like a system defending itself against the indefensible. (And by indefensible I do not mean that it is corrupt or got everything wrong, but simply that clearly something is wrong and denying it seems futile.)

So here’s a test of our maturity as a nation. Can we put our hands up and say ‘look, we were naive and shouldn’t have been bounced into this. We were, we were wrong and we’re going to put it straight’. Or once more – as in McKie, as in Cadder, as in slopping out – will we just keep reassuring ourselves that the tide will not come in, even as it laps around our ears?


[An interesting article has just been published on the WideShut.co.uk website entitled Lockerbie Bomber Was Innocent; New Documents Support the Obvious.]

Let us see reasons for appeal on Megrahi conviction

[This is the headline over an editorial in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

Ever since the release, in August 2009, of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, there has long been some disquiet about whether pressure was brought to bear on him by the Scottish Government.

This was largely because the Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, held a private meeting in Greenock Prison with Megrahi before sanctioning his release on compassionate grounds as he was expected to live for only about three months. Mr MacAskill's statement to the Scottish Parliament yesterday that he did not suggest to the then Libyan Foreign Minister that it would expedite the release if Megrahi were to withdraw his appeal against his conviction counters one of the allegations made this week in the authorised biography of Megrahi. But there is a danger that the political dimension to this claim diverts attention from more far-reaching questions about the conviction.

Mr MacAskill insists the Scottish Government had no interest in Megrahi's appeal being abandoned. Although Megrahi withdrew his appeal, it would be possible for a posthumous one to be sought. If that is the wish of Megrahi's family or of relatives of victims of the atrocity, it should not be thwarted.

The accumulation of allegations of disturbing discrepancies about the evidence led in the trial and information withheld from the defence are among several areas of doubt and some disquiet.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) had found six grounds on which Megrahi's conviction was potentially unsafe. The Scottish Government says it wants publication in the interests of transparency but this is subject to data protection law which is reserved to Westminster. With the publication of the biography, written by a researcher for Megrahi's legal team, much of that material is now in the public domain. The argument that publication would breach data protection law cannot now be sustained and, since any biographer must be selective, it is overwhelmingly in the public interest that the SCCRC's statement of reasons for approving the appeal is now published.

Similar arguments over the power to hold an inquiry should also be resolved in the public interest. Despite the Scottish Government's assertion that it would be willing to co-operate in a joint inquiry, the suspicion lingers that there is little enthusiasm for a process that could cast the Scottish judicial system in a poor light. That might be so but it does not serve the interests of justice or, indeed, the victims' families.

[An equally forthright editorial was published in The Herald on 28 February.  It can be read here.]

MacAskill: Bomber’s appeal may go ahead

[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times.  It reads in part:]

A Scottish court could yet hear another appeal against the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, the country’s Justice Secretary disclosed yesterday.

Kenny MacAskill, in a statement at Holyrood in which he vehemently rejected claims that he had raised the prospect of doing a deal with Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, said that such an appeal could be made before or after al-Megrahi’s death and could come from the Libyan himself, his family or campaigners who claim he is innocent.

An application would have to be made through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) who would refer it to the High Court.

It would then be up to the court to accept or refuse the application for appeal. The SCCRC has already decided that there are grounds for a further appeal, but it has not yet published its reasons for that finding.

If al-Megrahi dies before an appeal is heard, it could be taken forward under section 303A(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995 Act, which would enable his family to apply to the court to have the right of appeal transferred to them. (…)

Mr MacAskill also said the Parliament would want to know whether there was a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously. “I can confirm that there is. It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC, the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference,” he said.

“These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon. It is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise.” That, he said, was a matter for others, but he would have “every confidence” in the Scottish criminal justice system if there was to be another appeal. “That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with.”

Legislation going through the Scottish Parliament later this year will allow the SCCRC to publish its statement of reasons for finding grounds for appeal. However, the SCCRC would still have to obtain clearance from the Ministry of Justice in London because of the potential for publication to breach data protection laws.

Mr MacAskill said that he had written to Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary in the Westminster coalition, “urging him to make a decision for an exception to be made to the normal statutory data protection rules for this unique case”.

It is understood that Mr Clarke’s department is still receiving legal advice on whether the full SCCRC report can be published or whether parts of it may have to be redacted to comply with data protection legislation.

[The possibility of a further appeal after Mr Megrahi’s death is an issue that has been dealt with in this blog, for example here.]

Lockerbie tests the Scottish Government

[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday by uruisg on the Occasional Thoughts blog. It reads as follows:]

The mace in the Scottish Parliament is inscribed with the four words 'Wisdom, Justice, Compassion, Integrity'. Sadly none of these most worthy aspirations has been conspicuous in the Scottish Government's inaction over the Lockerbie problem.

Where is the wisdom in simply refusing to acknowledge the body of evidence suggesting the Megrahi conviction may have been unsafe? How is justice for the victims served by failing to pursue the truth? Where is the compassion for the bereaved relatives? And if there is fear of reputational damage to the Scottish justice system, would it not show more integrity to have the courage to face this possibility honestly and then, if necessary, put it right?

Arguably, Lockerbie is the litmus test of whether this government has the character the Scottish people aspire to in the four words on the mace. With the world watching, it may also be the test that determines whether Scotland has the confidence to stand proud as an independent nation.

[Beautifully said, Sir or Madam!]

John Ashton's response to MacAskill statement

[What follows is an item posted on John Ashton’s website Megrahi: You are my Jury:]

Below is the statement made by Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Parliament this afternoon. My comments are in regular typeface at the end of each section.

Presiding Officer, can I once again put on record my sympathy for the relatives of all those lost in the Lockerbie atrocity. Whether it is American and the many other nationalities murdered in the air or Scots lost on the ground, the anguish remains with them constantly.  However, I have been asked by the opposition to make a statement to Parliament on this matter once again and am willing to do so. Both myself and this Government have always sought to be as open and transparent as we can be on all matters relating to Lockerbie. The need for this statement relates to claims made in a book written by a former researcher with Mr Al‑ Megrahi’s legal team.  

Presiding Officer, these claims are wrong. Minutes of meetings relating to Mr Al‑Megrahi were made at the time and have, except where permission was not given by other Governments, been published. A minute of my meeting with Libyan representatives is one of them.  Unlike the claims of recent days, these minutes are not hearsay but an accurate record made at the time.  

The minute of the relevant meeting, which took place on 10 August 2009, runs to just 1 page, at least a third of which is taken up by the list of attendees, and contains only five points. It cannot possibly be described as a full minute. You can view it here. The minister should state who produced the minute and whether they did so contemporaneously.

This minute has been in the public domain since September 2009.   It is quite clear and refutes the assertions made. 

The minute quite clearly refutes nothing. The alleged conversation in question would almost certainly not have been minuted.

These records are made by impartial civil servants to ensure there is a proper historic record of important discussions.  

See first comment above.

In addition to the minute kept, Presiding Officer, let me be quite clear. Scottish Government officials were present throughout my meeting with Mr Al-Obeidi.  

This does not preclude Mr MacAskill telling Mr Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if Abdelbaset dropped his appeal.

At no time did I or any other member of the Scottish government suggest to Mr Obeidi, to anyone connected with the Libyan government, or indeed to Mr Megrahi himself, that abandoning his appeal against conviction would in any way aid or affect his application for compassionate release. 

This is close to an absolute  denial of Obedi’s claim. However, according to Abdelbaset, Obedi said that MacAskill told him dropping the appeal would make it easier for him to grant compassionate release, not that it would aid or effect the application. This is a subtle difference, which may or may not be significant.

Let us remember what the two different processes were:  One process was an application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, made by the Gaddafi regime.  This required an end to any appeal proceedings before a transfer could happen. The second process was an application for compassionate release made by Mr Al-Megrahi himself, to which no such condition applied. We vigorously opposed the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, negotiated by the then UK Government with the Gaddafi regime, not least because it represented interference in the Scottish legal process. We wrote to the UK Government no fewer than eight times, between June 2007 and September 2008 setting out our opposition. I considered but rejected the application for Prisoner Transfer made in respect of him. And I granted a request for compassionate release submitted by him as I believed it adhered to the laws and values we hold in Scotland. I did so on the evidence before me from the Parole Board, the Prison Governor and Director of Health and Care in the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned .  

Really? Even though it would have dragged the reputation of the Crown Office through the mud?

I had no involvement in Mr Al-Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal against conviction – that was entirely a matter for him and his legal team. 

It was, in fact, a matter for Abdelbaset alone.

However Presiding Officer, one thing that is now clear from this new book as detailed on page 352, is that Mr Al‑Megrahi signed a provisional undertaking to abandon his appeal on March 23 2009. It is clear therefore he was considering dropping his appeal several months before either the two applications were put before me. At the time Mr Al-Megrahi had no way of knowing what my decision would be, either on compassionate release or on PTA.  However, he did know that a prisoner transfer application would have been refused had there been any ongoing legal proceedings. 

So what? Abdelbaset was desperate and was willing to do whatever it took to get home.

The author of the book John Ashton has himself accepted on BBC radio yesterday that the claim in the book is “hearsay”.     

This gives the misleading impression that my radio interview constituted a climbdown. In fact what I said in that interview is entirely consistent with the book, which makes clear that the claim was hearsay.

This Government has shown consistently we want to be as open and transparent as we can be on all aspects surrounding the Al-Megrahi case.  That is why we have brought forward the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) Bill to aid publication of the Statement of Reasons. As assertion by the author is that we, the Scottish Government, do not want the Statement of Reasons published.  Presiding Officer, nothing could be further from the truth.  This legislation, introduced by this Scottish Government, will enable the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information in cases they have investigated where a subsequent appeal has been abandoned. The legislation helps leave the Commission as the decision maker as to whether they publish their report on the Al-Megrahi case. Under the legislation, the Commission have to decide whether, in the whole circumstances, it is appropriate to disclose their Statement of Reasons.  There will be a range of factors the Commission will want to consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to disclose information. One key factor is likely to be how much of the Statement of the Reasons is already in the public domain.  With the publication of the book and television documentaries containing what apparently may well be significant material from the Statement of Reasons, this could be an important factor which the Commission may want to consider when they decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information they hold. As members know, we are limited within the powers of this Parliament as to how far our legislation can go in freeing up the Commission to disclose information. Data protection, which is a reserved matter, is a key obstacle to disclosure. I first spoke with Kenneth Clarke back in September 2010 on this issue.  And since our Bill was introduced, I have already written to him on three occasions on this issue. We are now faced with publication of material that is apparently from the Statement of Reasons. This means that the case for an exception to data protection rules is now overwhelming, but this is for the UK Government to act upon. That is why I have today written again to Kenneth Clarke urging that the UK Government now make a decision for an exception to be made to the normal statutory data protection rules for this unique case.  This will help ensure the wider public interest can be served and the road to publishing the Statement of Reasons is further cleared. Let no one be in any doubt. We want the Statement of Reasons published and are doing all that we can, within the powers of this Parliament, for this to happen.  

I am not qualified to comment in depth on the legal issues raised here, however, a number of better qualified commentators have observed that the government, despite what it claims, has littered the road to publication with more obstacles than are necessary.  It seems as if – much like Abdelbaset’s appeal – the whole process has been complicated in the hope that the delay will draw some of the sting from publication.

Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court and that is the only place where his guilt or innocence should be determined. We recognise that some have concerns regarding the wider issues relating to the atrocity.  The wide-ranging and international nature of the issues involved means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK Government. We remain ready to co-operate on an inquiry. 

Why not hold an inquiry into the devolved issue of the Crown Office’s handling of the case?

Members will want to know whether there is a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously. Presiding Officer, I can confirm to the Chamber that there is.  It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC, the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference.  These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon. These are decisions for others to make, but I think it is important that we as a Parliament are aware of the position.  Presiding Officer, as I neither sought the abandonment nor continuation of Mr Al Megrahi’s appeal, it is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise. That is correctly a matter for others,  and I would have every confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system were there to be another appeal.   That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with. 

I doubt that the Crown Office would be so comfortable with a new appeal given that it would be accountable to the High Court for its failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to Abdelbaset’s original defence team.

We want the Commission’s report to be in the public domain to help ensure public confidence is retained in our justice system. This Government is doing all that we can to bring disclosure of the Statement of Reasons. I urge all members to support these efforts by supporting our Bill; and supporting our efforts to get the UK Government to make an exception to data protection rules.

A letter from Dr Jim Swire to PM David Cameron

[This is the headline over a letter from Jim Swire to the Prime Minister published this afternoon on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads as follows:]

Dear Prime Minister,

While in Edinburgh on Monday 27 February, I heard that prior to the book Megrahi: You are my Jury being launched, you had publicly claimed that it was an insult to the families of those who died at Lockerbie.

I just want you to be aware that far from being an insult, this book appears to raise issues which cast yet further doubt upon the verdict reached at Zeist against Mr Megrahi.

We all know that times are hard, but in light of the doubts that exist about this conviction it would be hugely appreciated if some effort could be diverted by Whitehall to objective examination of the fall-out from this terrible case.

Comments from Lady Thatcher's time onwards about the tragedy surely now need review. She wrote in The Downing Street Years that following the bombing by the USAF of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986.

'The much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. Gaddafi had not been destroyed but he had been humbled. There was a marked decline in Libyan sponsored terrorism in succeeding years.'

Yet the UK Government was telling us that Lockerbie was a Libyan atrocity from start to finish.

The paradox between those who actually try to comprehend all the available facts for and against the verdict over Megrahi and those with blind faith in the verdict is not resolving.

To comment in the way that you are reported to have done on Monday morning may be to support the wishes of the American Government and many American relatives, but what we search for is the truth, and that search is not likely to be well supported by such comments about a book which you could not possibly have read beforehand.

May I humbly suggest that you revisit The Downing Street Years, (page 449), just to check that that is indeed what she wrote: there are over 900 pages all told. Then perhaps have an objective assessment made of the contents of the Megrahi: You are my Jury book, as I feel sure that you have not the time to read all of its almost 500 pages.

Please remember that although relatively small in number, our distress at what for some of us appears to be deliberate concealment of the truth is real, and when supported by so significant a person as yourself, deeply distressing. Bereavement is a life sentence as you know only too well.

That said I would welcome the opportunity to come and discuss the situation with yourself, or members of your cabinet.

In view of all this I have made the contents of this letter publicly available (without the need for any hacking!).

Any reply, from yourself, as courtesy demands, will receive appropriate confidentiality, unless cleared by you for similar treatment.

With best wishes to you and your family,

Dr Jim Swire           

Father of Flora murdered, age 23, at Lockerbie 21/12/88.

MacAskill rejects Lockerbie claims

[This is the headline over a report published this afternoon on the heraldscotland.com website. It reads as follows:]

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill today rejected allegations that he urged the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to drop his appeal to smooth the way for his compassionate release.

Mr MacAskill came under pressure from opposition parties to make an immediate statement to the Scottish Parliament following the publication of the semi-autobiographical book Megrahi: You Are My Jury on Monday.

In the book, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi claims Mr MacAskill held a "private" discussion with Libyan foreign minister Abdulati al-Obedi in which "he gave him to understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal".

But in a statement to MSPs, Mr MacAskill said "these claims are wrong", adding that he would be "entirely comfortable" with the appeal being reopened.

He also confirmed that there is a mechanism for the appeal to be reopened even after Megrahi's death.

Mr MacAskill said: "Scottish Government officials were present throughout my meeting with Mr al-Obedi.

"At no time did I or any other member of the Scottish Government suggest to Mr al-Obedi, to anyone connected with the Libyan government, or indeed to Mr al-Megrahi himself, that abandoning his appeal against conviction would in any way aid or affect his application for compassionate release."

He added: "The Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr al-Megrahi's appeal being abandoned.

"I had no involvement in Mr al-Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal against conviction - that was entirely a matter for him and his legal team."

He said MSPs would want to know whether there is a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously.

He said: "I can confirm to the Chamber that there is.

"It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission), the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference.

"These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon.

"These are decisions for others to make, but I think it is important that we as a Parliament are aware of the position.

"I neither sought the abandonment nor continuation of Mr al-Megrahi's appeal, it is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise.

"That is correctly a matter for others, and I would have every confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system were there to be another appeal. That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with."

[Another report can be found here on the BBC News website; here on the STV News website; and here on the Daily Record website.]

We should beware forensic evidence to secure convictions

[This is the headline over an article by Dr John Cameron, physicist and former Church of Scotland minister, in today’s edition of the Scottish Review.  It reads as follows:]

I first became involved in the Lockerbie case when Nelson Mandela asked the Church of Scotland to support his efforts to have Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction overturned. 

As an experienced lawyer, Mandela studied the transcripts and decided there had been a miscarriage of justice, pointing especially to serious problems with the forensic evidence. I was the only research physicist among the clergy and was the obvious person to review the evidence to produce a technical report which might be understood by the Kirk.

Scientists always select the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions to eliminate complicated constructions and keep theories grounded in the laws of science. This is 'Occam's razor' and from the outset the theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta as unaccompanied baggage and rattled around Europe seemed quite mad. I contacted everyone I knew in aviation and they all were of the opinion it was placed on board at the notoriously insecure Heathrow and that the trigger had to be barometric.

The Maltese link is so tenuous, complex and full of assumptions it depends almost totally upon the integrity of the three forensic scientists involved – and that was a big problem. Megrahi is the only person convicted on their evidence whose conviction was not reversed on appeal.

One of the UK's foremost criminal lawyers, Michael Mansfield, has long warned against our judiciary's gross over-reliance on forensic evidence to secure convictions. He said: 'Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake anyone can make is to believe its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading.'

There is, in fact, a kind of 'canteen culture' in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than seekers after truth. The scientific evidence points to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [-General Command] whose chief bomb-maker, Marwen Khreesat, was arrested in Frankfurt in December 1988.

In the boot of his car was a Toshiba cassette recorder identical to the one found later at Lockerbie with Semtex moulded inside it, a simple time delay and a barometric switch.

[In the same issue there is a contribution by David Hill which reads in part:]

With John Ashton's book blowing to smithereens any shred of credibilty left clinging to the guilty verdict on Al Megrahi (despite the BBC's selective and timid account of it) [The Herald]  led today [Tuesday 28 February] with a minor distraction about how or why the appeal was abandoned.

I know no sensible or well-informed person who believes the 'evidence' presented at the travesty at Camp Zeist would have got through a sheriff court.

I know no sensible or well-informed person who is now confident that Al Megrahi was guilty. And I recognise a growing conviction on the part of most of these preople that the sentence passed on Al Megrahi was the result of a pre-ordained and absolutely disgusting stitch between the US and the UK governments and the government of Libya to send, for whatever reasons, an innocent man to jail.

As the revelations have trickled out over the years it has become more and more probable that some in authority in Scotland were involved and I remain puzzled as to why the present Scottish Government, not in power at the the time of the trial, is dragging its feet.

I have assumed for some time that the UK, the US and particularly the Libyans have had every reason to fear an inquiry, whether a public inquiry or an Al Megrahi appeal, but once our newspapers see it as their obligation to cover up for those in power these newspapers are beyond any respect.

...the media and the Scottish Parliament totally miss the point...

[What follows is from an item headed The Transatlantic relationship posted today on the website Lockerbietruth.com maintained by Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph:]

 

With the launch of John Ashton's book Megrahi: You are my Jury, once again we see a furor about what Kenny McKaskill said  to whom about the compassionate release of Al-Megrahi.  And once again the media and the entire Scottish Parliament totally miss the point.

In a closely argued section, Ashton highlights a serious discrepancy in the evidence of British forensic scientist Alan Feraday.  Feraday's own hand-written notes prove that the electronic print on the alleged fragment of timer board found by Dr Thomas Hayes is not the same metal printed on the control MST-13 timer board supplied by Swiss manufacturers MEBO. 

Feraday wrote that the Hayes fragment printing was 100% pure tin, but that the MEBO control sample printing was an alloy composed of 70% tin and 30% lead.  He explained the difference by saying that the heat of the explosion had evaporated all - yes, 100% - of the lead content.  A highly doubtful theory indeed.  No tests were carried out at any stage to back up his theory.

In other words, Feraday's own notes provide strong evidence that the Hayes fragment might be a manufactured plant, designed to point the finger at Libya, and divert attention from Iran in America's strategic interests during the mid and late 1980's. 

This information was supplied to Al-Megrahi's defence team in 2009 only during the course of the second appeal, abandoned at an early stage to enable Al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.  It should, under rules of natural Scottish justice, have been available prior to the trial which took place in 2000. But it was concealed by the police, forensic services and the Crown Office for more than ten years. 

If Iran - who paid $11m to the Jibril terrorist group only two days after the attack - was responsible, then the bomb which brought down Pan Am 103 was constructed by Marwan Khreesat, career master bomb maker for the PFLP-GC. Khreesat was a double agent working for Jordanian security, and rumoured to be a CIA asset. 

In a set of hearsay notes recorded by the FBI and repeated during the Lockerbie trial, Khreesat claimed "He did not think he made the Lockerbie bomb". As a career mass-murderer and double and possibly triple agent, can we trust his word?  We doubt it. 

But the Lockerbie trial judges did trust his word.  Then let us ask for a moment what would have happened if they had not. If they had expressed doubt concerning the timer fragment, their verdict would have suggested that the bomb which killed 270 people at Lockerbie was made by an asset working for America.  

Could the relationship between Britain and America have survived the shock?  And is this question not of far more import than a ministerial statement in a Scottish parliament?