The coverage of his death has been crass and repugnant

[This is the headline over an article in the current edition of the Scottish Review by the editor, Kenneth Roy.  It reads as follows:]

Two of posh boy's closest chums, Charlie and Rebekah, along with a number of retainers, will be planking their expensively clad bottoms on the hard dock of Westminster magistrates' court three weeks tomorrow to face charges which, if proved, would normally lead to a significant stretch alongside ordinary Sun readers, heaven forbid, if not the life imprisonment to which these serious charges would make them theoretically liable; meanwhile, criminal proceedings against his former right-hand man, Mr Coulson, are still widely expected. I have just written an extremely long sentence. Purest coincidence.

Yet the prime minister, lol, still feels he's something of an authority on justice in this country. Mr High Moral Tone says the dying Megrahi should never have been released. John Junor's faithful assistant, Alice, invariably had a sick bag handy for passing to her master at the first sign of the latest hypocrisy. Alice, who was the busiest girl in British journalism, is badly missed. I could have used her at the weekend as I listened to David Cameron and again yesterday at the physically revolting media coverage of Megrahi's death. 

Was there anyone more crass than the prime minister lol? Almost unbelievably, there was. Her name is Johann Lamont and she appears to be the leader of the Scottish Labour Party.

This is what she said: Let me, on behalf of the people of Scotland, apologise to the families of all the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, for his [Megrahi's] early release. 

It is not necessary to accuse Ms Lamont of political opportunism; that goes with the territory. The truly remarkable thing about this statement – indeed the only remarkable thing – is its assumption that Johann Lamont is entitled to speak for the people of Scotland. I am one of the people of Scotland and she doesn't speak for me. My colleagues here are among the people of Scotland and she doesn't speak for them. In fact, there are many people of Scotland for whom Johann Lamont doesn't speak. How dare she?

I know for whom she speaks. There are 13,135 of them – the members of the Labour Party in Scotland. It's not a lot. It leaves 5,208,965 other people of Scotland whose opinions on the early release of Megrahi are unknown. Yet, on our behalf, Ms Lamont has just apologised to the families of the victims. She has presumed to apologise on my behalf, and your behalf, and everyone else's behalf. She has even had the audacity to apologise on behalf of the father of one of the victims, Dr Jim Swire, who has a home in Scotland, who could therefore be considered as one of the people of Scotland, and who supported Megrahi's early release and counted Megrahi as a friend.

If Ms Lamont's appointment as leader of the Scottish Labour Party had been endorsed by the Scottish public as a whole with her triumphant elevation to the office of first minister, her statement would have carried some authority. But it seems nothing much happened at the weekend while I was distracted trying to persuade Alice out of retirement. Johann Lamont simply went on being the leader of a party which collapsed dramatically only a year ago this month and is now reduced to 37 of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament. A little modesty from Ms Lamont wouldn't go amiss. Oh, and a few ideas.

I forced myself to buy seven newspapers yesterday. Johann Lamont would have been proud of the Labour-supporting Daily Record with its front-page splash DO NOT MOURN THIS MONSTER. The Sun's NO PITY was almost subdued by comparison, but the paper recovered its form on page 2: HE FINALLY DIES...2 YEARS 6 MONTHS LATE. The Daily Mail had DEATH OF BOMBER AND THE SHAMING OF JUSTICE, the shaming in question being the release of Megrahi rather than the extreme doubts over the safety of his conviction. The Express was at least prepared to admit a doubt of its own, avoiding dogmatic certainty with its NOW TELL US THE TRUTH ABOUT LOCKERBIE.

THE BOMBER IS DEAD screamed The Scotsman across the full length of the front page – this from a paper with a proud sceptical tradition, the paper of Alastair Dunnett, Magnus Magnusson and Eric Mackay, a paper once regarded as Scotland's national quality daily.

Of the seven, only The Herald and The Guardian afforded the dead man the dignity of a name in its main headline. Both also studiously avoided calling him 'the Lockerbie bomber', a policy which The Herald adopted at an early stage; instead it more accurately described him as the only person convicted of involvement. Pedantic, of course; but honourably and essentially so. If you wanted balanced reporting yesterday, these were the places to look. It was, however, best to avoid BBC Scotland which still had 'the Lockerbie bomber' plastered all over its coverage, even in reference to the funeral. It is, as ever, interesting that the Scottish controller is unable or unwilling to impose journalistic standards on his own staff.

Among the political class, not everyone was as crudely populist as Johann Lamont. The Tory MP for Lockerbie, David Mundell, bravely inserted in his statement a note of condolence for the dead man's family. Willie Rennie, leader of the Liberal Democrat rump in the parliament, rose in my estimation for his demand that the facts must now be established, 'including whether crucial forensic evidence was withheld from the trial'. Mr Mundell's humanity and Mr Rennie's political leadership stood in stark contrast to the sheer awfulness of Cameron and Lamont.

For Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, the long ordeal is over. This magazine supported his decision at the time; we go on supporting it. God or the skill of the medical profession decrees when a terminally sick person will die – although personal determination may also be a factor. For any human being to commit to paper the words '2 years 6 months late' is repugnant. 

Despite the hysterical delusions of the media, I do not believe for a moment that the Scottish Government was party to any 'deal'. A decent politician released Megrahi on compassionate grounds and on these grounds alone. What do the Americans, who go on executing their citizens, have to teach us about compassion? I am grateful, indeed proud, to live in a country which embodies this principle in its penal code.

I can prove the 'Lockerbie bomber' was innocent

[This is the headline over a long article by John Ashton on the Mail Online website. It provides a very useful summary of the contents of his book Megrahi: You are my Jury.  The article should be read in full by anyone with a genuine interest in the Lockerbie case.  The last few paragraphs are as follows:]

In his report on the trial, the official United Nations observer, Professor Hans Koechler described the finding of only Megrahi being guilty as ‘incomprehensible’.

As Megrahi’s legal team prepared to attempt to overturn the verdict for a second time, one last, crucial piece of evidence was finally  unearthed — evidence that would almost certainly have caused the case against him to collapse had it been known at the time of the  original trial.

This evidence was never heard, because Megrahi was released in August 2009 on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with prostate cancer before it was due to be presented in court.

For years, a cornerstone of the evidence of Libya’s involvement in the Lockerbie outrage — and, therefore, of Megrahi’s — was that tiny fragment of printed circuit board which had been found in one of the items of clothing bought from the Gaucis. The Americans had matched it to a small consignment of timers that had been sold to Libyan intelligence.

But exhaustive forensic tests carried out on behalf of Megrahi’s defence team proved in 2009 that although the fragment of circuit board apparently came from the bomb’s timer, it did not actually match any of the timers which had been sold to Libyan intelligence.

The Libyans had been supplied with timers whose copper circuitry was covered in an alloy of lead and tin. But the circuitry on the fragment from the Lockerbie bomb was covered only in tin.

It is a tiny difference, but a  crucial one. There was now no evidence that the Lockerbie bomb had a Libyan timer. 

In the event, at the original trial the judges recommended that a man they had sentenced to life imprisonment, a mass murderer who had killed 270 people, serve a minimum sentence of just 20 years. Ever since, the Megrahi team has spent years trying — successfully, I believe — to prove the Libyan was never guilty.

And while as a member of that team I accept that I may be regarded as party pris, it is surely difficult to avoid the feeling that the evidence against Megrahi was unreliable and that an innocent man had been convicted of committing the worst terrorist atrocity in British history.

Lockerbie families vow to force public inquiry

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads in part:]      

                                                                 

Relatives of the Lockerbie victims have vowed to pursue a public inquiry, even if it means forcing the hand of the UK Government through the courts.

On the day Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, was laid to rest near the Libyan capital of Tripoli, Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, revealed the families have taken legal advice and are planning to challenge UK ministers with a judicial review.

Prime Minister David Cameron and First Minister Alex Salmond have both rejected calls for an independent inquiry into the bombing in December 1988 that claimed 270 lives.

However, lawyers claim it would be possible to challenge that decision in the courts and Dr Swire said he is determined to pursue an inquiry.

It also emerged yesterday that Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer, will travel to Libya this week to pay his respects to Megrahi's family.

Megrahi was released from prison on compassionate grounds almost three years ago because he was suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

He had been granted a fresh appeal by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found there could have been a miscarriage of justice on six different grounds. However, he dropped the appeal.

Megrahi's release unleashed an international storm of criticism, but many of the victims' relatives believe the conviction to be unsound, especially in light of new evidence.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill yesterday said he had made the "right decision for the right reasons". (…)

SNP MP Angus Robertson said the "hypocrisy" of Labour and Conservative MPs was in contrast to Mr MacAskill's "in good faith" decision.

Dr Swire and other relatives are working with leading lawyer Gareth Peirce to compel the UK Government under human rights legislation to allow an inquiry.

Dr Swire told The Herald: "Our lawyers are saying we have an absolute right to know who killed our loved ones and why they were not protected."

He said that had become "increasingly important" since they learned recently that statements about a break-in at Heathrow Airport before the December 1988 bombing were kept by police until 1999.

Dr Swire added: "This might mean pushing for a judicial review of the UK Government's decision not to grant an independent inquiry.

"The alternative right now is for Alex Salmond to get his act together and grant an independent inquiry in Scotland.

"I am not in the mood to forgo the right to know who murdered my daughter and who knew the airport was broken into 16 hours before and decided not to do anything about it.

"I will have to take further advice on whether I could pursue this through the SCCRC. I think the next move lies with the Megrahi family."

Professor Robert Black QC – the architect of Megrahi's trial, said ministers could be persuaded to hold an independent inquiry in Scotland, or a relative of Megrahi may re-apply to the SCCRC and push for a new appeal.

Ministers' continued refusal to hold a public inquiry could be challenged as a breach of article 8, the right to a family life.

Niall McCluskey, an advocate and expert in human rights, said: "The court could declare the Government was in some way in breach of the petitioner's human rights. Judicial review is a mechanism by which they could seek to have the decision of the Government not to hold an inquiry challenged."

John Ashton, a former member of Megrahi's defence team and the author of his official biography, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, said: "He has suffered a very painful death and he has gone to his grave with the conviction hanging over him.

"I am convinced that sooner or later the conviction will be overturned."

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of al Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns to some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.

"The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature."

Downing Street refused to explain Mr Cameron's reasoning behind his refusal to back a new inquiry.

[It is disappointing to see the Scottish Government trotting out the shopworn old excuse that any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government. As has been pointed out on many occasions, what is being called for is an inquiry into the investigation, prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Each and every one of these matters is within the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government:

The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
Mr Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
Mr Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
Mr Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice.] 

NYT admits Lockerbie case flaws

[This is the headline over an article published today on the Consortiumnews.com website.  It reads in part:]

Even in death, Libyan Ali al-Megrahi is dubbed “the Lockerbie bomber,” a depiction that proved useful last year in rallying public support for “regime change” in Libya. But The New York Times now concedes, belatedly, that the case against him was riddled with errors and false testimony, as Robert Parry reports.

From the Now-They-Tell-Us department comes The New York Times obit of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted by a special Scottish court for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. After Megrahi’s death from cancer was announced on Sunday, the Times finally acknowledged that his guilt was in serious doubt.

Last year, when the Times and other major US news outlets were manufacturing public consent for a new war against another Middle East “bad guy,” ie Muammar Gaddafi, Megrahi’s guilt was treated as flat fact. Indeed, citation of the Lockerbie bombing became the debate closer, effectively silencing anyone who raised questions about US involvement in another war for “regime change.”

After all, who would “defend” the monsters involved in blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans? Again and again, the US-backed military intervention to oust Gaddafi in 2011 was justified by Gaddafi’s presumed authorship of the Lockerbie terrorist attack.

Only a few non-mainstream news outlets, like Consortiumnews.com, bothered to actually review the dubious evidence against Megrahi and raise questions about the judgment of the Scottish court that convicted Megrahi in 2001.

By contrast to those few skeptical articles, The New York Times stoked last year’s war fever by suppressing or ignoring those doubts. For instance, one March 2011 article out of Washington began by stating: “There once was no American institution more hostile to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s’s pariah government than the Central Intelligence Agency, which had lost its deputy Beirut station chief when Libyan intelligence operatives blew up Pan Am Flight 103 above Scotland in 1988.”

Note the lack of doubt or even attribution. A similar certainty prevailed in virtually all other mainstream news reports and commentaries, ranging from the right-wing media to the liberal MSNBC, whose foreign policy correspondent Andrea Mitchell would seal the deal by recalling that Libya had accepted “responsibility” for the bombing.

Gaddafi’s eventual defeat, capture and grisly murder brought no fresh doubts about the certainty of the guilt of Megrahi, who was simply called the “Lockerbie bomber.” Few eyebrows were raised even when British authorities released Libya’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa after asking him some Lockerbie questions.

Scotland Yard also apparently failed to notice the dog not barking when the new pro-Western Libyan government took power and released no confirmation that Gaddafi’s government indeed had sponsored the 1988 attack. After Gaddafi’s overthrow and death, the Lockerbie issue just disappeared from the news.

A Surprising Obit

So, readers of The New York Times’ obituary page might have been surprised Monday if they read deep into Megrahi’s obit and discovered this summary of the case:

“The enigmatic Mr Megrahi had been the central figure of the case for decades, reviled as a terrorist but defended by many Libyans, and even some world leaders, as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence.”

If you read even further, you would find this more detailed examination of the evidence:

“Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.

“After a three-year investigation, Mr Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan airline station manager in Malta, were indicted on mass murder charges in 1991. Libya refused to extradite them, and the United Nations imposed eight years of sanctions that cost Libya $30 billion.  …

“Negotiations led by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa produced a compromise in 1999: the suspects’ surrender, and a trial by Scottish judges in the Netherlands.

“The trial lasted 85 days. None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays.

“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert.

“Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in Mr Fhimah’s desk in Malta, that Mr Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.

“On Jan 31, 2001, the three-judge court found Mr Megrahi guilty but acquitted Mr Fhimah. The court called the case circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable, but concluded that ‘there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt’ of Mr Megrahi.

“Much of the evidence was later challenged. It emerged that Mr Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.

“Investigators said Mr Bollier, whom even the court called ‘untruthful and unreliable,’ had changed his story repeatedly after taking money from Libya, and might have gone to Tripoli just before the attack to fit a timer and bomb into the cassette recorder. The implication that he was a conspirator was never pursued.

“In 2007, Mr Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.

“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.

“Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by Mr Mandela. Many legal experts and investigative journalists challenged the evidence, calling Mr Megrahi a scapegoat for a Libyan government long identified with terrorism. While denying involvement, Libya paid $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in 2003 in a bid to end years of diplomatic isolation.”

Prosecutorial Misconduct

In other words, the case against Megrahi looks to have been an example of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane, an unlikely route for a terrorist attack and made even more dubious by the absence of any evidence of an unaccompanied bag being put on those flights).

Also, objective journalists should have noted that Libya’s much-touted acceptance of “responsibility” was simply an effort to get punishing sanctions lifted and that Libya always continued to assert its innocence.

All of the above facts were known in 2011 when the Times and the rest of the mainstream US press corps presented a dramatically different version to the American people. Last year, all these questions and doubts were suppressed in the name of rallying support for “regime change” in Libya.

There are clear reasons why many believe the Lockerbie trial was a miscarriage of justice

[This is the headline over an article by Kim Sengupta published today on the website of The Independent.  It reads as follows:]

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, his face skeletal, could barely move. He was attached to a drip, his face covered by an oxygen mask, drifting in and out of consciousness. The medicine needed for his treatment had been plundered by looters; the doctors had fled.

That was how I found the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in Tripoli last Autumn, the reminder of the controversy surrounding an atrocity 24 years ago. His brother Abdelnasser asked "Why do they want so much to drag him back to suffer in prison? You are looking at a man who is very close to dying."

The vengeful pursuit of Megrahi, the feeling that he has somehow escaped justice by not actually dying in a cell, is the result of a genuine belief by some that he was guilty, allied to anger that his release was part of the many dodgy deals between the British government and Muammar Gaddafi's regime. Yet there are cogent reasons why so many others, including members of bereaved families such as Dr Jim Swire who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, have been convinced that Megrahi's conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

Soon after the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 American and British officials were busy laying the blame on the Iran Syria axis. However, after Iran and Syria joined the US-led coalition against Saddam Hussein in the first Gulf War the same officials switched the blame to Libya, at the time very much a pariah state.

The trial of Megrahi and his fellow Libyan defendant Lamin Khalifa Fhimah at a specially constituted Scotttish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands came under criticism from international jurists. The two men were effectively charged with joint enterprise, yet only Megrahi was found guilty. The prosecution evidence was circumstantial; details of the bomb timer on the plane contradictory and the testimony of a key witness, a Maltese shopkeeper, shaky under cross-examination.

The evidence of a supposedly prime "CIA intelligence asset", codenamed "Puzzle Piece" who turned up in a Shirley Bassey wig, was widely viewed as risible. It emerged later that important evidence had not been passed on to the defence lawyers.

Professor Hans Koechler, a UN appointed legal observer, described the proceedings and a subsequent failed appeal by Megrahi as "inconsistent, arbitrary and a spectacular miscarriage of justice".

British friend of Megrahi: he deserved better

[This is the headline over an article by George Thomson published today on the LBC 97.3FM website.  It reads as follows:]

Abdelbaset al Megrahi was a good friend of mine.

The last time I saw him was at his house in Tripoli last December. I'm no doctor, but I could see he had only a short time to live.

He lay on his bed in very poor health and, while he was conscious, struggled to speak.

He gave me a ceremonial waistcoat as a gift, a gesture of kindness that was typical of the man.

But the waistcoat wasn't all. Megrahi left me with his dying wish that I help to continue the campaign that consumed him until his final breath - the fight to clear his name.

He asked me to make contact with Dr Jim Swire, the father of a girl who died in the Lockerbie bombing, who believes in Megrahi's innocence.

He wanted us to work together, with like-minded supporters, to try to overturn his conviction. He insisted, as do we, that the whole case against him was based on conjecture and planted evidence.

I gave this innocent man my assurance that I would everything I possibly could to pursue a posthumous pardon.

The Megrahi I saw last December was entirely different from the man I first met in 2003, a couple of years after he'd been convicted and sent to jail in Scotland.

I am a criminal investigator and had joined his defence team as we worked on his appeal.

At that time, Megrahi was barely interested. He was down and, generally, had no hope that he would ever prove his innocence.

That changed, however, as we began to gather the evidence that cast doubt on his conviction. He soon became an interested, demanding client.

He had 24-hour access to a phone in jail, which he'd use to contact the Libyan consulate in Glasgow, that would, in turn, patch him through to any number in the world.

He would call my number on a daily basis, hungry for information. I'm a keen fisherman and soon had to start taking a mobile out on the boat with me to take Megrahi's calls as he became consumed by the effort to clear his name.

The campaign energised him. It gave him a focus behind bars and improved his mood, generally.

Over time, he also began to engage with his surroundings, making the best of the life he had in jail.

One of the conditions of the treaty drawn up before his handover by the Libyans was that he would have access to Arabic TV channels whilst in jail.

That meant that he could watch British football on the television in his cell which, in turn, meant that he was Mr Popular anytime there was a Rangers or Celtic game on TV.

Fellow inmates were able to enjoy live football coverage courtesy of their Libyan neighbour. He was a Rangers supporter, incidentally.

Not that he wasn't tuned into the potential hazards of prison life. He was given a visiting room to himself whenever I, or my colleagues, went to see him.

One day there was the sound of a commotion outside the door. We didn't know what was happening and, quick as a flash, Megrahi jumped out of his seat and stood behind me, for protection.

The panic soon ended, however, when it turned out to be a scuffle between two wardens who had argued over who should close the door to the visiting area.

It was around 2005 that he began to complain of pains in his stomach and of acid. He put it down to a poor prison diet.

Looking back, that was probably the initial symptoms of the prostate cancer that eventually killed him.

The subsequent demise of an old friend saddens me greatly. His conviction and sentence angers me, as it does others who firmly believe in his innocence.

Abdelbaset al Megrahi was a good man who deserved better, much better.

Megrahi was innocent, says Lockerbie victim's father, Martin Cadman

[What follows is taken from a report published today on the EDP24 website:]

For more than 20 years Norfolk man Martin Cadman has fought to uncover the true story behind his son Bill’s death in the Lockerbie disaster. Now Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the convicted bomber, is dead - but in this interview published in the EDP in April, Mr Cadman and the author of a new book explain why they believe he was innocent.

As Martin Cadman prepared to leave a meeting at London’s US Embassy just over a year after his son’s death aboard Pan Am flight 103, a member of the American Presidential Commission drew him to one side. “Keep up the fight,” he said. “Your government and ours know exactly what happened but they are never going to tell.”

Since then he has kept fighting and today, more than 23 years after Bill Cadman and 269 other people were killed, Mr Cadman has a filing cabinet in the study of his Burnham Market home crammed with folders relating to the disaster and the subsequent investigation. Despite this dogged research, exactly what happened remains a mystery to him, though he has his suspicions. But one thing of which he is certain is that it did not involve Libya or Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man who was convicted for the Lockerbie bombing in January 2001 at a trial under Scottish law in the Netherlands, spent eight years in a Scottish prison and was released on compassionate grounds after his diagnosis with terminal prostate cancer.

Now comes the publication of a book, co-authored by Megrahi, that presents new evidence seemingly undermining what many considered an already flimsy case for is prosecution, and this strengthens Mr Cadman’s view that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice.

“I don’t think that Megrahi or Libya had anything to do with it,” he said. “He has been made a scapegoat.” The bulk of Megrahi: You are my Jury – The Lockerbie Evidence is written by John Ashton, a Brighton-based author who has studied the case for 18 years and worked as part of Megrahi’s defence team between 2006 and 2009. Italicised passages written by Megrahi in the first person are interspersed through Ashton’s detailed analysis of the bombing and its aftermath. The book draws from a long-suppressed 800-page report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which was compiled in 2007 and would have featured in Megrahi’s second appeal against his conviction – but as is well known, he dropped his appeal and accepted a quicker release on compassionate grounds while remaining tainted with guilt as the convicted bomber.

Three major points emerge from the report and Mr Ashton’s own research. First, the most significant new evidence concerns the Toshiba cassette player that is believed to have been converted into an explosive device and stowed within a brown Samsonite suitcase in the luggage hold. This device featured a timer supposedly identical to those known to have been purchased by Libya from a company called Mebo, which purchased its circuit boards from a German firm called Thuring.

Mr Ashton said: “This is something that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission miss, and it relates to the forensics. The crucial forensic item in the case that really ties Megrahi and Libya in was this fragment of circuit board. We can demonstrate forensically that the prosecution claim that this originated from a timing device that was supplied to Libya is not true, because in the circuit boards in those timing devices, the copper circuitry was coated with an alloy of tin and lead. The Lockerbie one was coated with pure tin, which requires a completely different manufacturing process, and one that was not used by Thuring, the company that supplied those circuit boards.”

The second point concerns the Crown’s most important witness, a Maltese shopkeeper named Tony Gauci who, two months before the bombing, sold a man some clothes that were later used to wrap the tape-recorder bomb within the suitcase. In Mr Ashton’s words, Gauci’s initial “descriptions of the clothes purchaser all suggested the man was around 50 years old, 6ft tall and with dark skin, whereas Megrahi was 36, is 5ft 8in and has light skin”.

But in 1991, Gauci identified Megrahi as the man who entered his shop, selecting him from a line-up of photographs, and in 1999, he picked Megrahi out again, this time in person. “Before picking him out of the identity parade it turns out he’d had a magazine that featured Megrahi’s photo for months, so he would have been familiar with him. He’d had other newspaper and magazine articles as well, it turned out.”

The SCCRC report also established that he only gave evidence after asking for a $2m reward, and that the Scottish police persuaded the US Department of Justice to pay this sum, along with $1m for his brother, Paul. This fact was not disclosed to the defence during the trial, and would have been of great value as they sought to cast aspersions on the quality of Gauci’s evidence.

So if Mr Cadman, Mr Ashton and Megrahi are correct, who really was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing? Herein lies the third major aspect of the book’s case.

In July 1988, an American warship, the USS Vincennes, shot down Iran Air flight 655 from Bandar Abbas to Dubai as it flew over the Persian Gulf, killing 290 passengers.

“This Iranian airbus was taking people to the Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca,” said Mr Cadman, aged 87. “We never got an answer from the Americans as to why they shot down an innocent airbus.”

Instead of issuing an explanation or apology for the loss of innocent lives, the Ronald Reagan administration gave the USS Vincennes crew the Combat Action Ribbon. Five months after this attack, on December 21, 1988, came the Lockerbie bombing.

“It was a revenge thing, probably – Iran saying ‘we’re going to have the same number of yours as you killed of ours’,” said Mr Cadman. The investigators’ initial suspicion was indeed directed at Iran – specifically an Iranian-backed Palestinian terrorist group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC). This group had splintered from the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) and had already massacred civilians in Israel and Europe. In particular, the focus was on one man, Mohammed Abu Talb, who was given a life sentence in 1989 for attacks on Jewish targets. He is believed to have been freed from prison in 2009, shortly after Megrahi.

Mr Ashton said: “The key things about this group are: one, they built bombs into Toshiba radio cassette players; two, they built bombs that were designed to blow up aircraft; and three, the cell was based in West Germany, which is where the flight began its journey. There was a feeder flight called Pan Am 103A, and the flight that exploded was Pan Am flight 103.

“Although some of the group were rounded up two months before Lockerbie, some of their bombs went missing and some of the personnel were not rounded up. There was a warning issued in December 1988... The State Department circulated a warning which said that a group of Palestinian militants were heading to Europe and were planning to target Pan Am.” Mr Ashton said that that warning’s existence was not revealed until seven years after the Lockerbie disaster. He added: “So those things combine to make me think they did it – and Iran, of course, had the motive.”

Bill Cadman and his girlfriend were among 259 people to have died in the aeroplane on December 21, 1988, along with 11 more at the crash site in the small Scottish town of Lockerbie. Bill was 32 and building a successful career as a sound engineer responsible for the audio quality at West End musicals such as Les Miserables. He and his girlfriend were en route to America for Christmas. “They shouldn’t have been on the flight,” said Mr Cadman. “I think my son was trying to buy the tickets last minute, and he hadn’t got the money, but his girlfriend produced the money, otherwise they wouldn’t have been on the flight.”

Over the years he and his wife Rita, who now lives in a care home in Fakenham, had the support of a number of politicians such as Henry Bellingham, the Conservative MP for North-West Norfolk, and Tam Dalyell, the former Labour member for Linlithgow.

Both politicians had great respect for Mr Cadman – as does Mr Ashton. “I’ve dealt with Martin, he’s a very good man,” he said. “He’s been very dogged over the years. He deserves better than he’s got, all the relatives do. It’s only with the help of people like him that we keep all this on the agenda.”

Mr Ashton’s hope is that this book will result in a public inquiry in Scotland. “I think the chances of getting the people who really did it are very slight. The best we can hope for is a full inquiry. At the very least it needs to look into why all this evidence was withheld, but what we really need is the full inquiry which will answer the questions of Martin and others, which are: why were the warnings ignored, and what happened within the investigation that led to the PFLP-GC and Iran being dropped as suspects. And, on top of that, we need to get Megrahi’s case back to the appeal court. There is a mechanism for doing that – an application could be made to the SCCRC, and his family are being encouraged to do that.”

However, he is sure that Megrahi will not live to see this happen. When Megrahi returned home to Libya to die, his arrival prompted scenes of joy that disgusted many Britons and Americans, not least the many victims’ relatives who believe that he is a murderer.

Megrahi’s heroic status in his home country, however, owed nothing to the idea that he had struck a murderous blow against an American airliner; instead he is seen as an innocent man who sacrificed his liberty for the sake of the nation’s economy. In 2003, Muammar Gadaffi accepted Libyan responsibility for the atrocity and paid compensation to the victims’ families in order to have crippling sanctions lifted – and at the same time let it be known that he was doing so as an economic tactic rather than a true acceptance of guilt.

Megrahi describes his release from prison in the book: “The decision provoked a carnival of political pointscoring, which kept the issue at the top of the news agenda for over a fortnight. The controversy was entirely founded on the assumption that I was the Lockerbie bomber. Very little of the media and political comment acknowledged that I had had an appeal pending and that the SCCRC considered the original verdict was ‘at least arguably one which no reasonable court, properly directed, could have returned’.”

Mr Cadman does not know whether he will see someone else convicted for his son’s murder. He is sure of one thing, however, after that conversation at the embassy.

“I remember that he said ‘There are some things that you will hear about that are right, but you won’t hear all of it. And no one here is going to tell you everything.’ And that is rather frightening. There are these few people who are in the know, and the rest of us who are not.”

Megrahi: You are my Jury – The Lockerbie Evidence, by John Ashton, is published by Birlinn at £14.99.

... the Scottish Government should agree to a public inquiry

[An editorial in today's edition of The Independent reads as follows:]

The death of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in Tripoli yesterday is a closure of sorts, but only of the diplomatic fracas that accompanied his release from prison in Scotland in 2009. It brings us no closer to solving the mystery of who was responsible for the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Nor does it offer any resolution to the families of the 270 people who died.

Megrahi was released, after serving eight-and-a-half years of his 27-year sentence, because he had terminal prostate cancer and was judged to have only three months to live. But when he received a hero's welcome from Colonel Gaddafi on his arrival in Libya – and then proceeded to long outlive his Scottish doctors' pessimistic prognoses – his release provoked a major diplomatic incident.

The response in Scotland was mixed, less on the question of whether to be merciful to a dying man than because of doubts as to the validity of the conviction in the first place. In the US, however, there was widespread hostility and the release was widely denounced, not least by President Obama. As the stand-off continued, the allegations grew ever murkier, including claims that Westminster pressed for the deal to protect Britain's trading relationship with Libya. And there were also hints that the release was linked to Megrahi's last-minute decision to drop his appeal.

With his death, the diplomatic embarrassment, at least, is over. 

But there is unfinished business still. Megrahi's abandoned appeal followed a three-year Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission investigation that set out six different grounds upon which there might have been a miscarriage of justice, as he had always claimed. Several of the families of Lockerbie victims also believe in his innocence, and the representative of the families of some of the British victims described him yesterday as "the 271st victim". With so many loose ends remaining and so many questions about the original trial unresolved, the Scottish Government should agree to a public inquiry into the tragedy. Mr Megrahi's death is no reason to stop trying to get to the truth.

[The same newspaper contains an article by Robert Fisk which reads in part:]

Identification – based on a photo of the "guilty" man which the court was not told about – was always a pretty dodgy piece of evidence upon which to convict Megrahi, even without the later revelation that the CIA were paying out cash and contaminating the integrity of a witness.

No, Megrahi's lawyers were preparing a file that delved into piles of German interrogations of young men who may really have planted the bomb on a flight from Frankfurt to connect with Pan Am 103 at Heathrow.

The Germans had gone a long way to establishing that a Lebanese killed in the airliner was driven to Frankfurt by unknown Lebanese militants, and that the bag containing the bomb was actually put on the baggage carousel for checking in by the passenger's Lebanese handler – who had been looking after him in Germany.

I've gone through these files and I long ago concluded that they were devastating. There was a Lebanese connection – probably a Palestinian one, too. And there was a press conference in Beirut held by Ahmed Jibril, head of the pro-Syrian Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command in which Jibril (born Palestine 1938), suddenly blurted out – without ever having been accused of the atrocity – the imperishable words: "I'm not responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. They are trying to get me with a kangaroo court." Of course, there was no court, not then, just a bunch of pseudo-diplomats and journalists with too many "intelligence connections", who were fingering Syria for the Lockerbie crime.

Eventually, of course, all sides did well when the Scots decided that poor old Megrahi was going to kick the bucket within six months and might as well go home. To the mystification of his lawyers, Megrahi had forgone a judicial inquiry into his case in order to go back to Tripoli – and, as we now know, our Government was all too happy to see him off.

Wikileaks disclosed that British oil companies were more than keen to see the dying man shipped back to Tripoli to save their newly-acquired interests in Libya. The Americans were enraged – but not as enraged as they might have been if Megrahi's lawyers had been given the chance to tear the whole Lockerbie trial to bits.

[On the website of The Spectator is an article by Alex Massie headlined The Lockerbie affair is not over. It contains the following:]

Megrahi's cancer proved unusually convenient. I don't know if there was some kind of "understanding" that his prospects for release on compassionate grounds would be boosted if he dropped his appeal against his conviction. I do suspect that it was useful for all parties that his appeal was dropped. 

Despite what the Prime Minister says, Megrahi's guilt is not certain. As Ian Smart suggests there is little consensus even amongst those best informed about the case. This was not a "slam-dunk" case. Far from it. The evidence for guilt or innocence is a close-run thing whichever side of the argument you choose to take. Moreoever, it is possible to be convinced the Libyans were responsible for Lockerbie while also suspecting that the evidence against them was only barely strong enough to secure a conviction. Indeed the layman might reasonably conclude that if ever a case made an argument for the Not Proven verdict, Lockerbie is that case. 

Even so, one should not assume that the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission's report would have led to Megrahi's conviction being overturned. This too makes Megrahi's cancer as unfortunate as it may have been darkly convenient. Though Lockerbie is still, as the First Minister pointed out yesterday, a live case the prospects of getting a fully persuasive resolution to the bombing of Pan-Am 103 seem pretty bleak.