[What follows is Dr Jim Swire’s reaction to the Crown Office’s intemperate statement about Justice for Megrahi’s letter to Kenny MacAskill alleging serious wrongdoing in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution:]
This is not the time for the Crown Office to proclaim their innocence. It is the time for them to produce credible proof, if such there be, that the very serious allegations lodged against them by the Justice for Megrahi group are false.
According to an article in The Scotsman, the Crown Office recently quoted the SCCRC as having pointed out it had found no basis for the allegation that any 'police officers or officials' fabricated evidence.
So far as I am aware no one alleges that Scottish police officers or Scottish 'officials' might have fabricated evidence. This claim presumably refers to the circuit board fragment known as PT35b
PT35b, was a crucial prop for the story of a long running timer having been used from Malta. We now know that it could not have come, as the Crown claimed in court, from the batch of timers sold to the Libyans by the MEBO company of Zurich and manufactured by Thuring AG..
The pattern of tracks on PT35b were a perfect optical mimic of those on a corner of the Libyan boards, yet as John Ashton's book Megrahi: You are my Jury showed in May of this year, the metallurgy used for PT35b was novel and simply not available to Thuring AG, the manufacturer of the Libyan boards.
This combination of optical mimicry in an item incapable of having come from the crucial Libyan owned boards, certainly seems to carry the stigma of fabrication, including that word's modern gloss of 'the deliberate presentation of an object or story with the intention to deceive'.
There is however as yet no evidence as to who might have fabricated PT35b, only questions about the way it seems to have entered the evidence chain, claimed to have been found inside a Scottish police evidence bag, whose label had been improperly altered by an unknown hand.
Simpler and very serious in its own right is the question of why the Crown Office (and that includes the Dumfries and Galloway police) withheld information about the Heathrow break-in from the defence and the Zeist court.
The defence would have divulged to the CO well before the trial had even started that they intended to lead a defence of incrimination, and this must have included the intention of incriminating the Syrian group called the PFLP-GC and the use of one of their specialised IEDs (bombs).
The details of these bombs were well known to the (West German) police experts with whom the Scottish police had multiple meetings.
The police (and therefore the CO) knew, or should have known, that these bombs were available to terrorists in 1988 and were inert until they sensed a drop in air pressure following take-off. They also knew or should have known that once triggered following take off, these IEDs would always explode 30-45 minutes into a flight.
The Lockerbie flight lasted 38 minutes out of Heathrow.
The Zeist court was told that the Syrian timers were not adjustable, therefore access to the airport of take-off of the targeted aircraft itself was mandatory for the terrorist.
We now know (courtesy of Chief Constable Patrick Shearer in a letter to myself) that the D & G police were aware by January 1989 that Heathrow had been broken into 16 hours before Lockerbie, close to where the PA103 bags were loaded that evening. Yet the defence and the court were denied this evidence until after the verdict had been reached at Zeist.
Why?
For the UN special observer to the trial, Prof Hans Koechler, the failure by the Crown to share information such as this with the defence team guaranteed that the trial could not be described as fair.
For me as a father the thought that the terrorist infiltrator might have been so close to my daughter below the corridors of Heathrow airport that night, as to be able to hear their chatter as the passengers headed for the excitement of Christmas in America still makes me very angry. Nothing useful had been done to trace the intruder.
We know that Lockerbie was a revenge attack, however to seek revenge for mistakes made by Heathrow or the Crown Office and their investigators as individuals smacks of a sinking towards the level of the terrorists themselves.
Our search as UK relatives has always been for truth and justice. To that we would dearly love to add a contribution to building something good out of something so evil as this atrocity.
Just as in medicine, curing a cancer may mean curetting out the last vestiges of the tumour, so in this dreadful case we must define what went wrong in the greatest possible detail, if the best corrective steps are to be imposed.for the future benefit of all our people.
As a mature society we need to pass the investigation of and the fall-out from serious crime to a justice system immune to extrinsic interference or the favouring of any interests outside the pursuit of truth. The blindfold on the eyes of justice needs to fit perfectly.
We need to have confidence that this is so, and we need to see justice done and done promptly.
Frankly, I was shocked when the current Lord Advocate, in February of this year, told us relatives that he had wondered why the Heathrow evidence had not been available to the Zeist court but had been unable to find out.
The complaints from JFM surely demand independent and prompt investigation, and their call is for a full and independent inquiry.
As relatives, we have a right to know who killed our families and why they were not protected. How sad that nearly 25 years after their brutal murders we still find that we are being cheated of the truth.
I do not wish to know whether the Crown Office considers itself innocent. I have known the answer to that for years. I wish to see independent and fully empowered minds brought to bear at last upon these issues, to our enlightenment, and to the lasting benefit of all of Scotland's people.
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
Sunday, 30 September 2012
US Congresswoman wants answers from Libya
[What follows is the text of a report published yesterday on the website of The Daily Orange, the newspaper of Syracuse University, New York:]
US Rep Ann Marie Buerkle, seizing on public frustration with the new Libyan government after the attack that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans, wants to turn up the heat on the new regime regarding Pan Am Flight 103.
Buerkle has proposed a House resolution that calls for Libya to cooperate with US authorities who have never closed the books on their investigation of the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people when a flight from London exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Among the dead were 35 Syracuse University students returning from a semester abroad and five others with ties to Central New York.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan agent, was the only person convicted in the attack. The new Libyan government has promised to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department in finding others who may have conspired in the attack.
Buerkle, R-Onondaga Hill, said her resolution will formally express the “disappointment and concern” of Congress regarding the stalled US probe of the bombing and the “failure of Libya” to grant permission for US authorities to investigate and gather evidence in Libya.
Buerkle’s resolution also would require the Justice Department to report what resources it has devoted to the open investigation over the past 24 years and the costs associated with the investigation.
In December, the new Libyan ambassador to the United States attended the annual memorial service for Pan Am Flight 103 victims at Arlington National Cemetery. Ambassador Ali Aujali told the families at the service that the new government will help bring to justice those responsible for the attack.
Separately, Buerkle is working on a second piece of legislation to help the families of Pan Am 103 victims obtain additional compensation from a fund set up in 2004 after the US received a $1.5 billion payment from Libya. Buerkle could introduce the bill when the House returns to session after the November election.
US Rep Ann Marie Buerkle, seizing on public frustration with the new Libyan government after the attack that killed the US ambassador and three other Americans, wants to turn up the heat on the new regime regarding Pan Am Flight 103.
Buerkle has proposed a House resolution that calls for Libya to cooperate with US authorities who have never closed the books on their investigation of the 1988 bombing that killed 270 people when a flight from London exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Among the dead were 35 Syracuse University students returning from a semester abroad and five others with ties to Central New York.
Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a former Libyan agent, was the only person convicted in the attack. The new Libyan government has promised to cooperate with the FBI and Justice Department in finding others who may have conspired in the attack.
Buerkle, R-Onondaga Hill, said her resolution will formally express the “disappointment and concern” of Congress regarding the stalled US probe of the bombing and the “failure of Libya” to grant permission for US authorities to investigate and gather evidence in Libya.
Buerkle’s resolution also would require the Justice Department to report what resources it has devoted to the open investigation over the past 24 years and the costs associated with the investigation.
In December, the new Libyan ambassador to the United States attended the annual memorial service for Pan Am Flight 103 victims at Arlington National Cemetery. Ambassador Ali Aujali told the families at the service that the new government will help bring to justice those responsible for the attack.
Separately, Buerkle is working on a second piece of legislation to help the families of Pan Am 103 victims obtain additional compensation from a fund set up in 2004 after the US received a $1.5 billion payment from Libya. Buerkle could introduce the bill when the House returns to session after the November election.
Thursday, 27 September 2012
Double jeopardy and Lockerbie
[What follows is taken from a profile in today’s edition of The Scotsman of Lesley Thomson, Solicitor General for Scotland:]
The Scottish Government’s Double Jeopardy Act 2011 means prosecutors can try people twice if significant new evidence came to light. One case is expected to reach court by the end of 2012, but the Crown Office will not say which.
“What happened in November last year was the launch of the cold case unit and the homicide database,” says Thomson. “That was partly for cold cases but also with an eye towards what was happening in regards to double jeopardy. That was always going to contain double jeopardy as well. At that time, working with police, it was decided to prioritise a group of cases without naming them.”
However, some cases being re-examined are known. The Crown Office has confirmed it has asked police to reinvestigate the murders of Surjit Singh Chhokar, Amanda Duffy and World’s End victims Christine Eadie and Helen Scott.
The Lockerbie investigation has also been linked to double jeopardy, although Ms Thomson will not be drawn on this as it is a live investigation.
If the Crown seeks to bring charges against Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah it will need to do so under double jeopardy, because he has already faced one trial where he was found not guilty and acquitted of 270 counts of murder in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.
However, if the Crown Office goes after other individuals, who have not previously faced prosecution for the terrorist atrocity, they will not need to rely on double jeopardy.
What Thomson is keen to stress, however, is that the Crown Office saw double jeopardy coming and had been preparing for the legislation which was introduced in November last year.
“There was already work being done about how we go about an old investigation,” she says. “There was a lot of thinking about how we would run that in parallel with current investigations.”
[As I remarked in an earlier post on this blog: “I would be astounded if prosecutors sought to re-indict Lamin Fhimah. The Crown Office is just as aware as the rest of us are that the astonishing thing about the Zeist trial was not the acquittal of Fhimah but the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Any 'new evidence' that has emerged since 2001 points clearly towards the innocence of the accused Libyans rather than their guilt, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others has pointed out.”]
The Scottish Government’s Double Jeopardy Act 2011 means prosecutors can try people twice if significant new evidence came to light. One case is expected to reach court by the end of 2012, but the Crown Office will not say which.
“What happened in November last year was the launch of the cold case unit and the homicide database,” says Thomson. “That was partly for cold cases but also with an eye towards what was happening in regards to double jeopardy. That was always going to contain double jeopardy as well. At that time, working with police, it was decided to prioritise a group of cases without naming them.”
However, some cases being re-examined are known. The Crown Office has confirmed it has asked police to reinvestigate the murders of Surjit Singh Chhokar, Amanda Duffy and World’s End victims Christine Eadie and Helen Scott.
The Lockerbie investigation has also been linked to double jeopardy, although Ms Thomson will not be drawn on this as it is a live investigation.
If the Crown seeks to bring charges against Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah it will need to do so under double jeopardy, because he has already faced one trial where he was found not guilty and acquitted of 270 counts of murder in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing.
However, if the Crown Office goes after other individuals, who have not previously faced prosecution for the terrorist atrocity, they will not need to rely on double jeopardy.
What Thomson is keen to stress, however, is that the Crown Office saw double jeopardy coming and had been preparing for the legislation which was introduced in November last year.
“There was already work being done about how we go about an old investigation,” she says. “There was a lot of thinking about how we would run that in parallel with current investigations.”
[As I remarked in an earlier post on this blog: “I would be astounded if prosecutors sought to re-indict Lamin Fhimah. The Crown Office is just as aware as the rest of us are that the astonishing thing about the Zeist trial was not the acquittal of Fhimah but the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Any 'new evidence' that has emerged since 2001 points clearly towards the innocence of the accused Libyans rather than their guilt, as the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst others has pointed out.”]
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
Lockerbie, Hillsborough and the truth
[This is the headline over an editorial in today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times. It reads as follows:]
A recent report probing the 1989 Hillsborough disaster revealed the lengths to which the police were prepared to go to divert blame from the failure to control the stadium crush that claimed 96 lives.
The damning conclusions rightly elicited anger from the victims’ families but it also brought closure and a sense of justice, albeit 23 years late.
That tragedy happened a few months after a Pan Am aircraft was blown up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, 11 on the ground.
The only man accused of the 1988 Lockerbie attack died last May. But the mystery over whether Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi was really responsible for the bomb explosion failed to be buried when he died.
The American authorities, especially, may have had good reason to pin the blame on a Libyan man. Muammar Gaddafi was perceived as an enthusiastic sponsor of terrorism in the 1980s.
As the Libyan leader was hunted down last year we were told more “facts” would emerge that he had directly ordered the downing of Pan Am. So many months on, we’re still waiting.
Only when Al-Megrahi was on his last breath did the more embarrassing facts start to emerge – but by then the western media did not find the story salacious enough.
What we know is that three Scottish judges, who heard the case at The Hague in 2001, accepted the prosecution’s case that the evidence pointed to the Libyan since he had purchased clothes in Malta – that were wrapped around the bomb – which he then placed on an Air Malta aircraft bound for Frankfurt, from where a feeder flight took it to the departing Pan Am jumbo jet at Heathrow.
But there are several other less convoluted facts that the prosecution conveniently failed to address.
Let’s just mention a few salient points which show that the available evidence was selectively massaged in such a way as to make the verdict against Al-Megrahi possible.
After Al-Megrahi was imprisoned, it emerged that the Scottish police were aware that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport 16 hours before PA103 was blown up. Why wasn’t this crucial point raised in the original trial?
A Maltese man – Tony Gauci – told international investigators that Al-Megrahi bought the clothes (which were wrapped around the bomb) from his shop in Sliema. But why do the authorities till this day ignore a fact which emerged later that Mr Gauci had been coached and promised compensation from the CIA to point to the Libyan man as the guilty party?
Why did the Crown Office fail to listen to warnings of their own forensic expert that a fragment of circuit board (allegedly originating from the wreckage) simply did not match the Libyan bomb timer board allegedly used? The list of questions is endless.
The Times revealed last week that the Maltese courts have been asked to gather fresh evidence connected to Lockerbie – and this is welcome news. The Maltese Government has claimed Luqa airport had no connection with the atrocity. If that is really the case then the real Lockerbie bomber has never been identified.
As Jim Swire, a man whose daughter was killed at Lockerbie, aptly put it in an opinion piece written last week: “to divert blame away from the actual perpetrators is to protect them and to increase the chances of them striking again.”
Like Hillsborough, it is not too late for the Lockerbie victims’ families to get to know the truth.
[A report in the same newspaper on yesterday’s proceedings before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee can be read here. The secretary of Justice for Megrahi, Robert Forrester, is extensively quoted.]
A recent report probing the 1989 Hillsborough disaster revealed the lengths to which the police were prepared to go to divert blame from the failure to control the stadium crush that claimed 96 lives.
The damning conclusions rightly elicited anger from the victims’ families but it also brought closure and a sense of justice, albeit 23 years late.
That tragedy happened a few months after a Pan Am aircraft was blown up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing 270 people, 11 on the ground.
The only man accused of the 1988 Lockerbie attack died last May. But the mystery over whether Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi was really responsible for the bomb explosion failed to be buried when he died.
The American authorities, especially, may have had good reason to pin the blame on a Libyan man. Muammar Gaddafi was perceived as an enthusiastic sponsor of terrorism in the 1980s.
As the Libyan leader was hunted down last year we were told more “facts” would emerge that he had directly ordered the downing of Pan Am. So many months on, we’re still waiting.
Only when Al-Megrahi was on his last breath did the more embarrassing facts start to emerge – but by then the western media did not find the story salacious enough.
What we know is that three Scottish judges, who heard the case at The Hague in 2001, accepted the prosecution’s case that the evidence pointed to the Libyan since he had purchased clothes in Malta – that were wrapped around the bomb – which he then placed on an Air Malta aircraft bound for Frankfurt, from where a feeder flight took it to the departing Pan Am jumbo jet at Heathrow.
But there are several other less convoluted facts that the prosecution conveniently failed to address.
Let’s just mention a few salient points which show that the available evidence was selectively massaged in such a way as to make the verdict against Al-Megrahi possible.
After Al-Megrahi was imprisoned, it emerged that the Scottish police were aware that there had been a break-in at Heathrow airport 16 hours before PA103 was blown up. Why wasn’t this crucial point raised in the original trial?
A Maltese man – Tony Gauci – told international investigators that Al-Megrahi bought the clothes (which were wrapped around the bomb) from his shop in Sliema. But why do the authorities till this day ignore a fact which emerged later that Mr Gauci had been coached and promised compensation from the CIA to point to the Libyan man as the guilty party?
Why did the Crown Office fail to listen to warnings of their own forensic expert that a fragment of circuit board (allegedly originating from the wreckage) simply did not match the Libyan bomb timer board allegedly used? The list of questions is endless.
The Times revealed last week that the Maltese courts have been asked to gather fresh evidence connected to Lockerbie – and this is welcome news. The Maltese Government has claimed Luqa airport had no connection with the atrocity. If that is really the case then the real Lockerbie bomber has never been identified.
As Jim Swire, a man whose daughter was killed at Lockerbie, aptly put it in an opinion piece written last week: “to divert blame away from the actual perpetrators is to protect them and to increase the chances of them striking again.”
Like Hillsborough, it is not too late for the Lockerbie victims’ families to get to know the truth.
[A report in the same newspaper on yesterday’s proceedings before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee can be read here. The secretary of Justice for Megrahi, Robert Forrester, is extensively quoted.]
The dead still wait...
[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday on the Lockerbie Truth website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph. It reads as follows:]
It is true that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi was found guilty in a court of law and his conviction confirmed by five senior judges. [RB: For the restricted scope of this appeal and the issues which it did not address, see Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result, section headed “The Appeal”.]
This - as Scottish government spokespersons continually remind us - remains the situation.
But those judges at trial and appeal are now proven to have been misled and mis-informed by senior British scientists and senior police officers who failed in their duty to the truth and the society they were entrusted to serve.
This also – as Scottish government spokespersons continually ignore – remains the situation.
During the Lockerbie trial, RARDE scientist Alan Feraday in his evidence stated as follows:
"The conducting pad and tracks present on the fragment PT/35(b) are of copper covered by a layer of pure tin."
(In other words, the tracking was 100% tin. And Feraday had written in long hand on his notebook just those numbers "100% tin".)
And later in his evidence Feraday stated:
".. it has been conclusively established that the [PT/35(b)] fragment materials and tracking pattern are similar in all respects to the area around the connection pad for the output relay of the MST-13 timer."
Unfortunately for Feraday is has now been conclusively established that the conducting pad and tracks present on all timer boards supplied to Libya by Swiss suppliers MEBO, and from which - according to the prosecution - came fragment PT/35(b), were of copper covered by a layer of 70/30% alloy of tin and lead.
Indeed, Feraday was aware of the difference and asked two scientists to look at the reason for the difference. They did not do so.
In his evidence at trial, Feraday never mentioned the discrepancy. The judges remained in ignorance of the discrepancy. The defence team knew nothing of it.
So the fragment materials were and are not "similar in all respects" to those used on the MEBO MST-13 timer boards.
This phrase "similar in all respects" formed the kernel of the judgement against al-Megrahi.
No-one knows the origin of the Lockerbie fragment, and we will not speculate as to where it came from or who made it. It is, however, clear that PT/35(b) did not originate from any timer boards which the prosecution claimed were used by Al-Megrahi.
The prosecution did not, incidentally, produce any evidence as to where Al-Megrahi had used such timers, nor where or how he had constructed a bomb, nor where he had stored it or deployed it. The judges, misled as they were by the remaining evidence, accepted such innuendo as fact.
The timer fragment PT/35(b) was not the only matter central to the verdict in which misinformation and concealment by the prosecution and their witnesses occurred. These are serious matters which cry out for independent investigation.
Earlier this year Prime Minister David Cameron, just two days after the revelation of the above information, claimed that such revelations were "an insult" to the Lockerbie dead.
We must leave it to objective historians to form their own conclusions on such a statement.
An independent inquiry into the Lockerbie tragedy and its investigation and evidence submitted at trial is long overdue.
It is now almost a quarter of a century since the December 1988 Lockerbie bombing. The two hundred and seventy dead of Lockerbie still wait for truth and justice.
It is true that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi was found guilty in a court of law and his conviction confirmed by five senior judges. [RB: For the restricted scope of this appeal and the issues which it did not address, see Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result, section headed “The Appeal”.]
But those judges at trial and appeal are now proven to have been misled and mis-informed by senior British scientists and senior police officers who failed in their duty to the truth and the society they were entrusted to serve.
This also – as Scottish government spokespersons continually ignore – remains the situation.
During the Lockerbie trial, RARDE scientist Alan Feraday in his evidence stated as follows:
"The conducting pad and tracks present on the fragment PT/35(b) are of copper covered by a layer of pure tin."
(In other words, the tracking was 100% tin. And Feraday had written in long hand on his notebook just those numbers "100% tin".)
And later in his evidence Feraday stated:
".. it has been conclusively established that the [PT/35(b)] fragment materials and tracking pattern are similar in all respects to the area around the connection pad for the output relay of the MST-13 timer."
Unfortunately for Feraday is has now been conclusively established that the conducting pad and tracks present on all timer boards supplied to Libya by Swiss suppliers MEBO, and from which - according to the prosecution - came fragment PT/35(b), were of copper covered by a layer of 70/30% alloy of tin and lead.
Indeed, Feraday was aware of the difference and asked two scientists to look at the reason for the difference. They did not do so.
In his evidence at trial, Feraday never mentioned the discrepancy. The judges remained in ignorance of the discrepancy. The defence team knew nothing of it.
So the fragment materials were and are not "similar in all respects" to those used on the MEBO MST-13 timer boards.
No-one knows the origin of the Lockerbie fragment, and we will not speculate as to where it came from or who made it. It is, however, clear that PT/35(b) did not originate from any timer boards which the prosecution claimed were used by Al-Megrahi.
The timer fragment PT/35(b) was not the only matter central to the verdict in which misinformation and concealment by the prosecution and their witnesses occurred. These are serious matters which cry out for independent investigation.
Earlier this year Prime Minister David Cameron, just two days after the revelation of the above information, claimed that such revelations were "an insult" to the Lockerbie dead.
We must leave it to objective historians to form their own conclusions on such a statement.
An independent inquiry into the Lockerbie tragedy and its investigation and evidence submitted at trial is long overdue.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Holyrood Justice Committee decision on Megrahi petition
[The following report on today’s proceedings in the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee is taken from The Press Association news agency report on the Kincardineshire Observer’s website:]
Calls for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have continued after "serious formal allegations" relating to the conduct of the investigation were laid before the Justice Secretary.
Holyrood's Justice Committee once again continued the long-running petition by the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group calling for an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Convener Christine Grahame said: "A letter of complaint has been sent to the Cabinet Secretary lodging serious formal allegations relating to the conduct of the investigation and the trial.
"That has been given 30 days grace to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary and then it will be public. I think we would like to see the Cabinet Secretary's response before we decide to do anything."
Despite initial objections by Labour MSP Graeme Pearson, who suggested that formal routes of appeal against the conviction remain open, the committee agreed to continue the petition.
Ms Grahame added: "I accept what is said about a court case being one way forward, but there is a possibility under the Inquiries Act for the Government to conduct an inquiry into something wholly within its remit. Well, the operation of the police and the Crown Office is wholly within the remit of the Scottish Government. So, there are certain powers that the Government has, whether or not they are used."
JFM said they have given Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill until October 13 to respond to their letter of complaint before they go public with the allegations. In a submission to the committee, sent shortly after the complaint was lodged, JFM said: "Serious question marks (have been) raised concerning the quality of forensic evidence relating to the shard of PCB alleged by the Crown to have been part of a triggering device for a bomb.
"It would now appear that expert evidence provided to the court by representatives of the Royal Armament and Research Establishment was deeply flawed and at least one of the expert witnesses may well have perjured himself."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The issues being raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
"As was made clear by the Cabinet Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament in February this year, it remains open for relatives of Mr Al-Megrahi to ask the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis, which ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
[A report on the website of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Campaigners with the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group, including Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, have a petition lodged at Holyrood demanding a full inquiry and MSPs today agreed to keep it running.
Nationalist Rod Campbell, himself an advocate, said it was a “comparatively short time” since Megrahi had died.
“We have no information as to what his intentions are in respect of a possible appeal,” he said.
“The proper place is in the criminal courts until we’re satisfied that no further criminal proceedings will be forthcoming.”
Former police officer John Finnie of the SNP said the current Libyan regime was unlikely to result in the family “receiving encouragement” to pursue an appeal.
Justice committee convenor Christine Grahame, herself a member of the JFM group said a letter has also been sent to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill with “serious formal allegations” about the conduct of the inquiry.
The cabinet secretary has been given 30 days grace to respond to this.
Ms Grahame added: “We would like to see that and the cabinet secretary’s response before we decide anything.
“I accept that the court case is one way forward, but there is also - and I just put this as a possibility – there is a possibility under the inquiries act for the Government to conduct an inquiry wholly within its remit. The operation of the police and Crown Office is within the remit of the Scottish Government.
“There are certain powers that Governments do have whether or not they are used.”
Dr Swire said afterwards major scientific doubts had been cast on the crucial evidence surrounding the bomb’s circuit board, which he believes undermined the verdict.
But he said: “The petition is for an independent inquiry and that would be my number one preference because there are very serious allegations over the Crown Office’s conduct in this case and it’s hard to see how an appeal would do anything other than raise the verdict against Megrahi who is no longer with us.”
“Alex Salmond has the power to call such an inquiry if he so decides.”
Calls for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have continued after "serious formal allegations" relating to the conduct of the investigation were laid before the Justice Secretary.
Holyrood's Justice Committee once again continued the long-running petition by the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group calling for an independent inquiry into the 2001 Kamp van Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988.
Convener Christine Grahame said: "A letter of complaint has been sent to the Cabinet Secretary lodging serious formal allegations relating to the conduct of the investigation and the trial.
"That has been given 30 days grace to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary and then it will be public. I think we would like to see the Cabinet Secretary's response before we decide to do anything."
Despite initial objections by Labour MSP Graeme Pearson, who suggested that formal routes of appeal against the conviction remain open, the committee agreed to continue the petition.
Ms Grahame added: "I accept what is said about a court case being one way forward, but there is a possibility under the Inquiries Act for the Government to conduct an inquiry into something wholly within its remit. Well, the operation of the police and the Crown Office is wholly within the remit of the Scottish Government. So, there are certain powers that the Government has, whether or not they are used."
JFM said they have given Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill until October 13 to respond to their letter of complaint before they go public with the allegations. In a submission to the committee, sent shortly after the complaint was lodged, JFM said: "Serious question marks (have been) raised concerning the quality of forensic evidence relating to the shard of PCB alleged by the Crown to have been part of a triggering device for a bomb.
"It would now appear that expert evidence provided to the court by representatives of the Royal Armament and Research Establishment was deeply flawed and at least one of the expert witnesses may well have perjured himself."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "The issues being raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law. Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.
"As was made clear by the Cabinet Secretary in his statement to the Scottish Parliament in February this year, it remains open for relatives of Mr Al-Megrahi to ask the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis, which ministers would be entirely comfortable with."
[A report on the website of The Scotsman contains the following:]
Campaigners with the Justice For Megrahi (JFM) group, including Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, have a petition lodged at Holyrood demanding a full inquiry and MSPs today agreed to keep it running.
Nationalist Rod Campbell, himself an advocate, said it was a “comparatively short time” since Megrahi had died.
“We have no information as to what his intentions are in respect of a possible appeal,” he said.
“The proper place is in the criminal courts until we’re satisfied that no further criminal proceedings will be forthcoming.”
Former police officer John Finnie of the SNP said the current Libyan regime was unlikely to result in the family “receiving encouragement” to pursue an appeal.
Justice committee convenor Christine Grahame, herself a member of the JFM group said a letter has also been sent to justice secretary Kenny MacAskill with “serious formal allegations” about the conduct of the inquiry.
The cabinet secretary has been given 30 days grace to respond to this.
Ms Grahame added: “We would like to see that and the cabinet secretary’s response before we decide anything.
“I accept that the court case is one way forward, but there is also - and I just put this as a possibility – there is a possibility under the inquiries act for the Government to conduct an inquiry wholly within its remit. The operation of the police and Crown Office is within the remit of the Scottish Government.
“There are certain powers that Governments do have whether or not they are used.”
Dr Swire said afterwards major scientific doubts had been cast on the crucial evidence surrounding the bomb’s circuit board, which he believes undermined the verdict.
But he said: “The petition is for an independent inquiry and that would be my number one preference because there are very serious allegations over the Crown Office’s conduct in this case and it’s hard to see how an appeal would do anything other than raise the verdict against Megrahi who is no longer with us.”
“Alex Salmond has the power to call such an inquiry if he so decides.”
Deliberately false and misleading allegations, says rattled Crown Office
[A report in today’s edition of The Scotsman, about Justice for Megrahi’s letter to Kenny MacAskill alleging serious wrongdoing in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution contains the following:]
But the Crown Office yesterday branded the allegations “defamatory and entirely unfounded”. A spokesman added that one of the allegations had been investigated by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SSCRC) which found no basis for appeal, while it was also found there was “no basis” for claims that any police officers or officials fabricated evidence.
“It is a matter of the greatest concern that deliberately false and misleading allegations have been made in this way,” he added. The Lockerbie conviction has already been upheld by five appeal court judges, while Megrahi abandoned a second appeal.
[Justice for Megrahi has undertaken not to make public the allegations of serious wrongdoing in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution until 30 days after the date of its letter (13 September 2012). However, since the article from which the following is excerpted has been in the public domain since its publication in The Scotsman on 23 July 2007, I see no reason not to reproduce it:]
The behaviour of the Crown in the Lockerbie trial was certainly not beyond criticism - and indeed it casts grave doubt on the extent to which the Lord Advocate and Crown Office staff can be relied on always to place the interest of securing a fair trial for the accused above any perceived institutional imperative to obtain a conviction.
To illustrate this in the context of the Lockerbie trial, it is enough to refer to the saga of CIA cables relating to the star Crown witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, who had been a long-standing CIA asset in Libya and, by the time of the trial, was living in the US in a witness protection programme. Giaka's evidence was ultimately found by the court to be utterly untrustworthy. This was largely due to the devastating effectiveness of the cross-examination by defence counsel. Their ability to destroy completely the credibility of the witness stemmed from the contents of cables in which his CIA handlers communicated to headquarters the information that Giaka had provided to them in the course of their secret meetings. Discrepancies between Giaka's evidence-in-chief to the Advocate Depute and the contents of these contemporaneous cables enabled the defence to mount a formidable challenge to the truthfulness and accuracy, or credibility and reliability, of Giaka's testimony. Had the information contained in these cables not been available to them, the task of attempting to demonstrate to the court that Giaka was an incredible or unreliable witness would have been more difficult, and perhaps impossible.
Yet the Crown strove valiantly to prevent the defence obtaining access to these cables. At the trial, on 22 August 2000, when he was seeking to persuade the Court to deny the defence access to those cables in their unedited or uncensored form, the then Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, stated that the members of the prosecution team who were given access to the uncensored CIA cables on 1 June 2000 were fully aware of the obligation incumbent upon them as prosecutors to make available to the defence material relevant to the defence of the accused and, to that end, approached the contents of those cables with certain considerations in mind.
Boyd said: "First of all, they considered whether or not there was any information behind the redactions which would undermine the Crown case in any way. Second, they considered whether there was anything which would appear to reflect on the credibility of Majid... On all of these matters, the learned Advocate Depute reached the conclusion that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special defence... I emphasise that the redactions have been made on the basis of what is in the interests of the security of a friendly power... Crown counsel was satisfied that there was nothing within the documents which bore upon the defence case in any way."
One judge, Lord Coulsfield, then intervened: "Does that include, Lord Advocate... that Crown counsel, having considered the documents, can say to the Court that there is nothing concealed which could possibly bear on the credibility of this witness?"
The Lord Advocate replied: "Well, I'm just checking with the counsel who made that... there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Majid on these matters."
Notwithstanding the opposition of the Lord Advocate, the court ordered the unedited cables to be made available to the defence, who went on to use their contents to such devastating effect in questioning Giaka that the court held that his evidence had to be disregarded in its entirety. Yet, strangely enough, the judges did not see fit publicly to censure the Crown for its inaccurate assurances that the cables contained nothing that could assist the defence.
[The allegations in Justice for Megrahi’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice are equally weighty and equally strongly founded on evidence.]
But the Crown Office yesterday branded the allegations “defamatory and entirely unfounded”. A spokesman added that one of the allegations had been investigated by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SSCRC) which found no basis for appeal, while it was also found there was “no basis” for claims that any police officers or officials fabricated evidence.
“It is a matter of the greatest concern that deliberately false and misleading allegations have been made in this way,” he added. The Lockerbie conviction has already been upheld by five appeal court judges, while Megrahi abandoned a second appeal.
[Justice for Megrahi has undertaken not to make public the allegations of serious wrongdoing in the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution until 30 days after the date of its letter (13 September 2012). However, since the article from which the following is excerpted has been in the public domain since its publication in The Scotsman on 23 July 2007, I see no reason not to reproduce it:]
The behaviour of the Crown in the Lockerbie trial was certainly not beyond criticism - and indeed it casts grave doubt on the extent to which the Lord Advocate and Crown Office staff can be relied on always to place the interest of securing a fair trial for the accused above any perceived institutional imperative to obtain a conviction.
To illustrate this in the context of the Lockerbie trial, it is enough to refer to the saga of CIA cables relating to the star Crown witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, who had been a long-standing CIA asset in Libya and, by the time of the trial, was living in the US in a witness protection programme. Giaka's evidence was ultimately found by the court to be utterly untrustworthy. This was largely due to the devastating effectiveness of the cross-examination by defence counsel. Their ability to destroy completely the credibility of the witness stemmed from the contents of cables in which his CIA handlers communicated to headquarters the information that Giaka had provided to them in the course of their secret meetings. Discrepancies between Giaka's evidence-in-chief to the Advocate Depute and the contents of these contemporaneous cables enabled the defence to mount a formidable challenge to the truthfulness and accuracy, or credibility and reliability, of Giaka's testimony. Had the information contained in these cables not been available to them, the task of attempting to demonstrate to the court that Giaka was an incredible or unreliable witness would have been more difficult, and perhaps impossible.
Yet the Crown strove valiantly to prevent the defence obtaining access to these cables. At the trial, on 22 August 2000, when he was seeking to persuade the Court to deny the defence access to those cables in their unedited or uncensored form, the then Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC, stated that the members of the prosecution team who were given access to the uncensored CIA cables on 1 June 2000 were fully aware of the obligation incumbent upon them as prosecutors to make available to the defence material relevant to the defence of the accused and, to that end, approached the contents of those cables with certain considerations in mind.
Boyd said: "First of all, they considered whether or not there was any information behind the redactions which would undermine the Crown case in any way. Second, they considered whether there was anything which would appear to reflect on the credibility of Majid... On all of these matters, the learned Advocate Depute reached the conclusion that there was nothing within the cables which bore on the defence case, either by undermining the Crown case or by advancing a positive case which was being made or may be made, having regard to the special defence... I emphasise that the redactions have been made on the basis of what is in the interests of the security of a friendly power... Crown counsel was satisfied that there was nothing within the documents which bore upon the defence case in any way."
One judge, Lord Coulsfield, then intervened: "Does that include, Lord Advocate... that Crown counsel, having considered the documents, can say to the Court that there is nothing concealed which could possibly bear on the credibility of this witness?"
The Lord Advocate replied: "Well, I'm just checking with the counsel who made that... there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Majid on these matters."
Notwithstanding the opposition of the Lord Advocate, the court ordered the unedited cables to be made available to the defence, who went on to use their contents to such devastating effect in questioning Giaka that the court held that his evidence had to be disregarded in its entirety. Yet, strangely enough, the judges did not see fit publicly to censure the Crown for its inaccurate assurances that the cables contained nothing that could assist the defence.
[The allegations in Justice for Megrahi’s letter to the Cabinet Secretary for Justice are equally weighty and equally strongly founded on evidence.]
Kenny MacAskill given Lockerbie probe claims deadline
[This is the headline over a report by Reevel Alderson, BBC Scotland home affairs correspondent, on the BBC News website. It reads as follows:]
Campaigners demanding a new inquiry into the 1988 Lockerbie disaster claim to have evidence that the investigation into the tragedy - and the subsequent trial - were mishandled.
They have written to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, giving him 30 days to respond.
If he does not, the group - Justice for Megrahi (JFM) - said they will publish their evidence.
MSPs are later due to again consider the group's petition for an inquiry.
The Scottish government has previously rejected the group's demands for an inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Libyan Secret Service agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was found guilty of 270 counts of murder.
A 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."
He added that the questions to be asked would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish government.
JFM said the investigation of the bombing was carried out by the Crown Office and the prosecution at Kamp van Zeist in the Netherlands was under Scots law, so an inquiry would lie within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.
In its letter to Mr MacAskill, the group claims to have evidence of major flaws in the investigation and trial.
The group's secretary, Robert Forrester said: "We do not propose to go public or divulge details of our allegations at this stage.
"We have given 30 days from 13 September to allow the justice secretary time to respond."
He said if no response was forthcoming, JFM would publish its evidence.
The convener of the Scottish Parliament's justice committee, Christine Grahame, said discussion on the petition, which was presented to Holyrood in 2010, may be continued until the justice secretary has had time to consider it.
In 2001 Megrahi was found guilty of committing the 1988 atrocity which saw 270 people killed over the south of Scotland town of Lockerbie.
The Libyan bomber was returned to his home country on compassionate grounds in August 2009 after serving 10 years in a Scottish jail.
He was suffering from prostate cancer and was released by Mr MacAskill when it was thought he had only a matter of months to live.
Megrahi, who died in Tripoli in May this year, always protested his innocence.
[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.]
Campaigners demanding a new inquiry into the 1988 Lockerbie disaster claim to have evidence that the investigation into the tragedy - and the subsequent trial - were mishandled.
They have written to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, giving him 30 days to respond.
If he does not, the group - Justice for Megrahi (JFM) - said they will publish their evidence.
MSPs are later due to again consider the group's petition for an inquiry.
The Scottish government has previously rejected the group's demands for an inquiry into the 2001 conviction of Libyan Secret Service agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was found guilty of 270 counts of murder.
A 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."
He added that the questions to be asked would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish government.
JFM said the investigation of the bombing was carried out by the Crown Office and the prosecution at Kamp van Zeist in the Netherlands was under Scots law, so an inquiry would lie within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.
In its letter to Mr MacAskill, the group claims to have evidence of major flaws in the investigation and trial.
The group's secretary, Robert Forrester said: "We do not propose to go public or divulge details of our allegations at this stage.
"We have given 30 days from 13 September to allow the justice secretary time to respond."
He said if no response was forthcoming, JFM would publish its evidence.
The convener of the Scottish Parliament's justice committee, Christine Grahame, said discussion on the petition, which was presented to Holyrood in 2010, may be continued until the justice secretary has had time to consider it.
In 2001 Megrahi was found guilty of committing the 1988 atrocity which saw 270 people killed over the south of Scotland town of Lockerbie.
The Libyan bomber was returned to his home country on compassionate grounds in August 2009 after serving 10 years in a Scottish jail.
He was suffering from prostate cancer and was released by Mr MacAskill when it was thought he had only a matter of months to live.
Megrahi, who died in Tripoli in May this year, always protested his innocence.
[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.]
Monday, 24 September 2012
Hillsborough-Pan Am 103 links laid before Justice Committee
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament has been told by the Justice for Megrahi campaign group that the Pan Am 103 debacle bears parallel’s with “England’s shame”, the Hillsborough cover up.
In its submission to the committee ahead of tomorrow’s hearing of a petition calling for an inquiry into the affair, the Justice for Megrahi group say the efforts of the government to protect “wrongdoers” was prioritised ahead of the protection of innocent people.
The JFM campaigners also say that a further criminal appeal may be raised in the event the committee does not convene an inquiry.
“The outcome of the Hillsborough enquiry has undoubtedly shone a light on the inner workings of a justice system that purported to keep its citizens safe and secure,” the submission says.
“Now we can see that protection of the system and the wrongdoers within it took precedence over protection of the individual citizen. Indeed efforts were made to transfer blame to innocent third parties.
“If Hillsborough was England’s shame then Lockerbie is Scotland’s, and much of the indifference and arrogance identified within the former can be identified in the latter. We applaud the open- minded approach of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and hope to see a similar scrutiny of the Lockerbie investigation, without fear or favour.”
Writing exclusively in The Firm last week, Dr Jim Swire also said the Hillsborough cover up was part of a consistent pattern of the Government in instances where it was at fault after the fact, such as the Chinook crash in 1994, the Shirley McKie affair and the Bloody Sunday events.
The issue will be discussed at a Firm Event addressed by Professor Robert Black QC, taking place in Glasgow tomorrow.
The JFM campaigners say that the possibility exists for a further appeal to be initiated by the executors or immediate family of Abdel Baset Al Megrahi, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 303A, which permit’s the transfer of the rights of appeal of a deceased person.
The committee adds that if the al-Megrahi family opt not to pursue it, “the door may be open for bereaved families” to do so.
“Whilst for some the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on 20 May this year may have changed the tenor of the debate surrounding the 1988 Pan Am 103 tragedy, it has not deflected the determination of campaigners seeking justice for the 270 victims of the disaster and an independent inquiry into the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for the atrocity,” the group adds.
“Events of 2012 have only strengthened the argument for an inquiry.”
The campaigners have also sent a letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, lodging serious formal allegations relating to the conduct of the Lockerbie investigation and the Kamp van Zeist trial.
“Out of respect to Mr MacAskill, JFM does not propose to go public with the text of the letter or to divulge detail concerning the precise nature of the allegations for a period of thirty days from 13 September, in order to allow Secretary MacAskill sufficient latitude to respond,” the group said.
“The manner in which the allegations are dealt with could have a direct bearing on [the petition].”
[This story has now been picked up on the Scotsman website. It can be read here.]
The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament has been told by the Justice for Megrahi campaign group that the Pan Am 103 debacle bears parallel’s with “England’s shame”, the Hillsborough cover up.
In its submission to the committee ahead of tomorrow’s hearing of a petition calling for an inquiry into the affair, the Justice for Megrahi group say the efforts of the government to protect “wrongdoers” was prioritised ahead of the protection of innocent people.
The JFM campaigners also say that a further criminal appeal may be raised in the event the committee does not convene an inquiry.
“The outcome of the Hillsborough enquiry has undoubtedly shone a light on the inner workings of a justice system that purported to keep its citizens safe and secure,” the submission says.
“Now we can see that protection of the system and the wrongdoers within it took precedence over protection of the individual citizen. Indeed efforts were made to transfer blame to innocent third parties.
“If Hillsborough was England’s shame then Lockerbie is Scotland’s, and much of the indifference and arrogance identified within the former can be identified in the latter. We applaud the open- minded approach of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and hope to see a similar scrutiny of the Lockerbie investigation, without fear or favour.”
Writing exclusively in The Firm last week, Dr Jim Swire also said the Hillsborough cover up was part of a consistent pattern of the Government in instances where it was at fault after the fact, such as the Chinook crash in 1994, the Shirley McKie affair and the Bloody Sunday events.
The issue will be discussed at a Firm Event addressed by Professor Robert Black QC, taking place in Glasgow tomorrow.
The JFM campaigners say that the possibility exists for a further appeal to be initiated by the executors or immediate family of Abdel Baset Al Megrahi, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 303A, which permit’s the transfer of the rights of appeal of a deceased person.
The committee adds that if the al-Megrahi family opt not to pursue it, “the door may be open for bereaved families” to do so.
“Whilst for some the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi on 20 May this year may have changed the tenor of the debate surrounding the 1988 Pan Am 103 tragedy, it has not deflected the determination of campaigners seeking justice for the 270 victims of the disaster and an independent inquiry into the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for the atrocity,” the group adds.
“Events of 2012 have only strengthened the argument for an inquiry.”
The campaigners have also sent a letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, lodging serious formal allegations relating to the conduct of the Lockerbie investigation and the Kamp van Zeist trial.
“Out of respect to Mr MacAskill, JFM does not propose to go public with the text of the letter or to divulge detail concerning the precise nature of the allegations for a period of thirty days from 13 September, in order to allow Secretary MacAskill sufficient latitude to respond,” the group said.
“The manner in which the allegations are dealt with could have a direct bearing on [the petition].”
[This story has now been picked up on the Scotsman website. It can be read here.]
Calls for justice for Lockerbie victims
[This is the headline over a report published in yesterday’s edition of the Sunday Mail. It does not appear to feature on the newspaper’s website, but can be read here. It picks up the item posted on this blog on 20 September. The somewhat longer version submitted by journalist Bob Smyth reads as follows:]
An American politician says not enough has been done to investigate the Lockerbie bombing – so she’s bidding for new laws to tackle her concerns.
US Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle has announced she will introduce two pieces of legislation regarding the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988.
They will demand a further investigation into the crime and "just compensation" for the families of the victims.
“Sadly, all these years later, the families of American victims are still awaiting justice,” she said.
“Until now, there has yet to be a complete investigation of those implicated in the crimes."
However, Scottish prosecutors responded last night by stressing that their investigation into the crime is ongoing.
The congresswoman added: “The families of the victims continue to hope for proper compensation for the crimes they have endured, as only some have received compensation.”
The Republican member for New York has worked closely with Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie and its president, Paul Hudson, on the legislation for several months.
The organisation is based at New York’s Syracuse University, which lost 35 students in the bombing over Lockerbie, which killed 270 people.
With Libya in the news for crimes against Americans, now is a good time to remember those who suffered under the Gaddafi regime, as well as the victims of the bombings, Buerkle said.
She added: “It is very little to ask that those who were responsible for the attack be brought to justice and that the families of the victims receive fair compensation.”
She has not revealed any more detail of the bills, which will be scrutinised by a committee of Congress to decide whether they should be allowed to proceed further.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted over the bombing, died in Tripoli in May. He served eight years in prison, but was released in August 2009 after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Following Megrahi’s death, Buerkle said: “I hope that his death will provide some level of closure for the families of the victims. However, the fight for justice will continue.”
Scottish prosecutors are currently making further investigations into Libya’s involvement in the tragedy. Earlier this week it was reported that authorities in Malta have held court hearings to take fresh evidence over Lockerbie.
Last night a Crown Office spokesman said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state-sponsored terrorism and did not act alone.
“Police are actively working with US law enforcement in pursuit of lines of enquiry to bring to justice the others involved in the Lockerbie bombing.
“The victims’ families are kept informed of any action or developments with the investigation wherever possible while preserving the integrity of the investigation.”
An American politician says not enough has been done to investigate the Lockerbie bombing – so she’s bidding for new laws to tackle her concerns.
US Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle has announced she will introduce two pieces of legislation regarding the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing in 1988.
They will demand a further investigation into the crime and "just compensation" for the families of the victims.
“Sadly, all these years later, the families of American victims are still awaiting justice,” she said.
“Until now, there has yet to be a complete investigation of those implicated in the crimes."
However, Scottish prosecutors responded last night by stressing that their investigation into the crime is ongoing.
The congresswoman added: “The families of the victims continue to hope for proper compensation for the crimes they have endured, as only some have received compensation.”
The Republican member for New York has worked closely with Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie and its president, Paul Hudson, on the legislation for several months.
The organisation is based at New York’s Syracuse University, which lost 35 students in the bombing over Lockerbie, which killed 270 people.
With Libya in the news for crimes against Americans, now is a good time to remember those who suffered under the Gaddafi regime, as well as the victims of the bombings, Buerkle said.
She added: “It is very little to ask that those who were responsible for the attack be brought to justice and that the families of the victims receive fair compensation.”
She has not revealed any more detail of the bills, which will be scrutinised by a committee of Congress to decide whether they should be allowed to proceed further.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person ever convicted over the bombing, died in Tripoli in May. He served eight years in prison, but was released in August 2009 after he was diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer.
Following Megrahi’s death, Buerkle said: “I hope that his death will provide some level of closure for the families of the victims. However, the fight for justice will continue.”
Scottish prosecutors are currently making further investigations into Libya’s involvement in the tragedy. Earlier this week it was reported that authorities in Malta have held court hearings to take fresh evidence over Lockerbie.
Last night a Crown Office spokesman said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state-sponsored terrorism and did not act alone.
“Police are actively working with US law enforcement in pursuit of lines of enquiry to bring to justice the others involved in the Lockerbie bombing.
“The victims’ families are kept informed of any action or developments with the investigation wherever possible while preserving the integrity of the investigation.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)