St Andrew, Lockerbie and Luqa

Today is St Andrew’s day.  Andrew the Apostle is the patron saint of Scotland. He is also the patron saint of Luqa in Malta, which falls within St Andrew’s Parish.  The bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie is alleged to have started its progress as unaccompanied baggage sent from Luqa Airport via Frankfurt to Heathrow. That version of events cannot survive the researches of Dr Morag Kerr, as set out in her book Adequately Explained by Stupidity? Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies, which is expected to be available on 10 December. 

It would do great credit to the Scottish Government if it were on this day to reverse its intransigent opposition to holding an independent inquiry into the shameful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. Such an inquiry would remove the stain that that conviction currently casts over both Scotland and Luqa.  Their shared patron saint would surely rejoice.

A G-Man rewrites history

[This is the heading over an item posted this morning by John Ashton on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website.  It reads as follows:]

I have just read Three Sisters Ponds: My Journey from Street Cop to FBI Special Agent – from Baltimore to Lockerbie, Pakistan and Beyond, by Phillip B J Reid, (or, at least, chapter 12, which charts his involvement in the Lockerbie case). Reid was one of the main FBI agents assigned to the Lockerbie investigation and spent a lot of time conducting inquiries in Malta with the Scottish police. It is a remarkable work not least for the number of factual error and distortions that it contains.

At p144 he states that Abdelbaset and Lamin Fhimah were partners in a Maltese travel agency. The agency in question, Medtours, was in fact owned by Lamin [Fhima] and his Maltese friend Vincent Vassallo and Abdelbaset had no role in it. The original indictment against the two Libyans claimed that Medtours was a JSO front. Reid makes no mention of the fact that, shortly before the end of the trial, the Crown dropped the allegation for lack of evidence, no doubt because the only person to make the claim was the money grabbing fantasist – and the FBI’s star witness – Magid Giaka.

At p149-50 Reid describes how Tony Gauci picked out Abdelbaset’s photograph on 15 February 1991, and in doing so completely re-writes history. He states that Gauci chose the photo, but said that the man who bought the clothes “was about 10 years older” than the one depicted in the photo. What Gauci in fact said was that the man would have to look 10 years or more older. Moreover, he was clear that the photo showed someone in their thirties, which meant that the clothes purchaser was at least in his forties. As Reid most know, but omits to mention, Abdelbaset was 36 at the time of the clothes purchase.

To make matters worse, Reid goes on to state “we later determined that the passport photo in question was about 10 years old.” This is complete nonsense. As Reid recounts, the photo was obtained by the CIA “from one of their overseas counterparts.” Other evidence confirms that the counterparts in question were the Swiss. The photo had been used by Abdelbaset for two Swiss visa application, which were dated 11 July 1988 and 16 December 1988.

Most outrageously, Reid states: “Gauci went on to say that the person in the photo had thick hair while the man who had come into the shop was thinning on top.” As Reid must have known at the time of writing, Abdelbaset was thinning on top. It seems that he is inviting us to infer that in the years between the photo being taken and the clothes purchase Abdelbaset had lost a lot of his hair. Nice theory, but completely at odds with the facts: Gauci had consistently described the clothes purchaser as having thick hair and the only recorded comment he made about hair on the 15 February was that the man in the photo’s was perhaps a bit longer than the clothes purchaser’s. Nowhere does Reid acknowledge that Gauci also consistently described the purchaser as 6 feet tall, around 50 years old heavily built and dark skinned, ie completely different to Abdelbaset [who was 5 feet 8 inches tall].

At p152-3 Reid writes that the FBI and Scottish police were able to view passenger manifests for every flight in and out of Malta during the critical timeframe, except for those operated by Libyan Arab Airlines. He claims that, with the help of the Maltese police, they visited the LAA office at Luqa airport and surreptitiously searched the records, only to find that the records for the flights in the days of interest were missing. “It was obvious”, he writes, “that the records had been deliberately removed to keep us from finding out who was on LAA flights in and out of Malta on the days surrounding the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.” Although Reid doesn’t say when this took place, as the book gives a broadly chronological account of the investigation, and as the previous page refers to events on 18 April 1991, it is very likely that it was after that date. The key flight in question was LAA flight LN174, which Abdelbaset took from Malta to Tripoli on the day of the bombing. The suggestion that the investigators were unable to access the flight’s passenger manifest is complete rubbish. A statement by DC Brian McManus (S3070FZ) describes how Inspector Godfrey Scicluna of the Maltese Police handed the manifest to him on 20 January 1991. DCI Harry Bell, who worked closely with Reid throughout the Maltese investigation showed the manifest to witnesses at Luqa airport on 18 & 19 February 1991 (statement S2632BN).

Pages 154-162 deal with Giaka, who is referred to only by his codename of Puzzle Piece. Reid explains that this name was coined “because he provided the missing pieces to the Pan Am Flight 103 investigation.” He adds: “It was clear that he was honest, almost to a fault.” That, of course, was not the CIA’s assessment of Giaka, rather his handlers described him as a shirker, whose primary interest was in getting the agency to pay for sham surgery in order to fake an injury so he could dodge military service. Nowhere in the chapter does Reid acknowledge that Giaka failed to implicate Abdelbaset and Lamin in the bombing until he had fled Libya and was desperate for asylum in the US. Neither does he acknowledge that, armed with the CIA’s cables on Giaka, defence counsel were able to destroy him in the witness box, and that the judges said that they considered him to be neither credible nor reliable.

Reid is at his most interesting when describing the role of the CIA in the investigation. It was the CIA, he says, who told the FBI that Abdelbaset sometimes used the cover name Abdusamad. More importantly, it was the agency who encouraged him to investigate the Libyans when the Scottish police were still pursuing the PFLP-GC. Reid describes how, in August 1990, he wrote a memo to his superiors, which argued the case that the Libyans were responsible. He gave a copy to his “CIA partners in Malta” even though he had been told by his superiors not to work with the agency. He writes that the CIA partners “reviewed the document and wholeheartedly agreed with my conclusions.” He then describes how he worked with them to develop potential leads, and how they eventually gave him the names of Abdelbaset and Lamin.

Reid confirms that, with his full knowledge and blessing, the CIA tapped the phone of Mohammed Abu Talb’s associate Abdelsalem Abu Nada. He also describes how the agency failed to remove the bugging device, which Abu Nada discovered and handed to the authorities, resulting in the Maltese government suspending the investigation for two months.

Undoubtedly the book’s most interesting claim is that there was evidence that Abu Talb was in Malta on 9 December 1988. If true then it would almost coincide with the date upon which the clothes purchase occurred, according to the Crown (7 December). More remarkably still, he writes: “We determined through passenger manifests and Maltese embarkation/disembarkation records that Talb had visited the island during the critical period around December 21, 1988.” According to the evidence explored at trial, there was nothing to indicate that Abu Talb was in Malta after 26 October 1988. If true, Reid’s claims are hugely important and the corresponding evidence should have been disclosed to the defence. However, given his appalling grasp of the facts elsewhere in the chapter, that’s a big ‘if’.

Maltese minister believes Megrahi innocent

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

The Foreign Minister of Malta has revealed that he does not believe the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was responsible.

George Vella made the comment about Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who was found guilty over the tragedy which took place 25 years ago.

The claim is the most direct by a serving minister about the controversial conviction, based around the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper and his brother.

Speaking on Times Talk television programme in Malta, Dr Vella said the government did not intend to point fingers at one country or other, but in view of the evidence that was emerging, he personally felt that the case needed to be heard once more before new judges in the interests of justice, not least that of Megrahi, who died last year.

Malta had good relations with the countries involved in the case, including the US and the UK but it has also just signed a memo-randum of understanding with Libya to agree preferential rates for oil and gas, once the country is back on its feet.

According to The Times of Malta, Dr Vella said his personal belief was that the bomb which downed the Pan Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie was a revenge attack after an Iranian passenger aircraft was shot down by a US warship in 1988.

Earlier in the programme, lawyer Dr Giannella de Marco said there was never any evidence to back the claim that the Lockerbie bomb was loaded on an Air Malta flight from Malta to Frankfurt and then to London for the Pan Am 103 flight because all luggage on the Air Malta aircraft in question had been accounted for and there were no unaccompanied bags.

Dr Vella agreed and said that once there was no evidence that the bomb started its journey in Malta, one could never find Malta-based Megrahi guilty. Nor did it make sense that of two accused, one was convicted and the other Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima was acquitted. With regard to reward money promised to Tony and Paul Gauci for their evidence in the Lockerbie trial, Dr Vella said that at no stage did the Gauci brothers actually request money.

However, Dr de Marco said there was evidence that the statements by the Gaucis changed several times, there was talk of reward money and money was given. Tony Gauci gave several versions of his description of Megrahi. He said one could not depend on a person who was inconsistent and was paid at the end of his evidence.

Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has repeatedly said that the type of bomb used could not have been loaded on an aircraft from Malta or Frankfurt as it would have exploded earlier.

Dr Vella, whose comments were broadcast earlier this week, is favourite to be named President of the Republic when Dr George Abela's term expires in April. His comments on Lockerbie were broadcast earlier this week.

Professor Robert Black, emeritus professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, said: "For a foreign minister to say that the verdict of a court of a friendly foreign country is wrong, is almost an unprecedented event. It is highly significant that the Foreign Minister of Malta has said this."

World views Lockerbie verdicts as work of Uncle Sam via a puppet state

[Today’s edition of The Scotsman contains a letter from Tom Minogue.  It reads as follows:]

Lockerbie lies

Without wishing to detract from the merits of the fine contributions of Iain McKie and Thomas Crooks (Letters, 27 November) regarding the Lockerbie witness reward monies, I was convinced that the trial was a farce long before the reward information was made public.

My disgust at the trial proceedings came when the United Nations appointed observer, Professor Hans Koechler published his first report in 2003 and criticised the interference in the presentation of evidence to the court by representatives of foreign governments.

Reporting on the appeal, Prof Koechler was similarly critical, to which the Crown Office responded by stating that it is a matter for the court itself to regulate who should be present. Explaining that the High Court of Justiciary has, “for long accepted that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and Crown Counsel whom they choose to have in court in their support”.

Of course, the Crown Office can do as they like, but they should not be surprised if by having anonymous United States ­officials supervising in the dock of a Scottish court they have abandoned any hope of appearing impartial in a political sense.

That was how Prof Koechler saw it and we shouldn’t be surprised if the world (excluding the US) views the Lockerbie trial and appeal verdicts as the work of Uncle Sam via a puppet state.

[I overlooked Thomas Crooks’s letter yesterday.  Here it now is:]

In the context of the Lockerbie trial, a Maltese newspaper has published extracts of police documents that said Mr Gauci had “a clear desire to gain financial benefit” from his evidence.

Documents released since the trial have repeatedly suggested the Gaucis expressed an interest in being paid for their testimony under the Reward for Justice programme controlled by the Department of Justice in the US.

A senior investigator in the inquiry has conceded that the brothers would have known about possible payments, but that nothing was offered before the trial and it had “never been discussed with them at any time prior to the trial – so it’s absolutely above board. There is no suggestion that there was anything underhand. It was all above board.”

After the trial, the senior investigator wrote to the US Department of Justice to recommend the pair receive a reward because he said the Gaucis fitted the criteria.

Last month the Crown Office stated: “No witness was offered any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before and during the trial and there is no evidence that any other law enforcement agency offered such an inducement.”

Arguably, no direct “inducement” was required. The Gaucis would have known they “fitted the criteria” for the reward. They had, before the trial, in the context of the justice programme, imbued their “evidence” with a monetary value.

The entire proceedings were scented with the aroma of reward – and it is arguable that the aroma scented the quality of the evidence provided by the brothers. Any jurisdiction with a reputation for the pursuit of justice would be concerned with the implications of such an aroma.

In this jurisdiction, the integrity of the proceedings reign supreme – irrespective of the objective material that points to the possibility of a colossal miscarriage of justice.

Maltese Foreign Minister expressed Megrahi guilt doubts while in opposition

[An article published today on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Independent reads as follows:]

The statement made by Foreign Minister George Vella on Tuesday – that he believes that Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in 1988, is innocent – is not totally new.

In an article he had written for The Malta Independent on Sunday on 6 September 2009, Mr Vella, then the Labour Party;s spokesman for foreign affairs, had given much more than a hint that he thought Megrahi was not responsible for the attack that brought down the Pan-Am flight 103 over the Scottish village, killing all 259 people on board and another 11 on the ground.

In the article, reproduced in the link below, Dr Vella had express serious doubts on how correct the decision taken by the Scottish courts had been.

“Serious doubts also emerged as to how reliable and how truthful certain witnesses were. Everything was pointing in the direction of a new trial, which most probably would have exculpated Mr al-Megrahi.

“In all probability it would also have shattered once and for all the theory that the luggage containing the bomb that caused the disaster had been loaded at Malta airport,” Dr Vella had written.

Dr Vella's statement on Tuesday was however made as Foreign Minister, and this could somewhat be received differently, especially by the United States.

Dr Vella is the top favourite to be named President of the Republic when Dr George Abela's term expires in April.

http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2009-09-06/opinions/malta-and-lockerbie-262918/

Lockerbie logic

[This is the headline over a letter from Iain McKie published in today’s edition of The Scotsman.  It reads as follows:]

The effects of the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 ­reverberated across Scotland and the world and many hoped that when Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty of the atrocity in 2001 that healing could start, comforted by the fact that Scotland’s justice system had served the 270 victims and their families well.

Unfortunately, as the 25th ­anniversary of the tragedy approaches, your latest revelations (...) only serve to highlight just what a miscarriage of injustice this was.

I follow the logic that “the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct”. It is not the complex legal, political and forensic “facts” about the case that convince but the “simple” ones.

At the Camp Zeist trial the “star” prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, identified Megrahi as the person who had purchased clothes in his shop in Malta which were identified as having been packed in the suitcase containing the bomb which ­destroyed the aircraft.

To this end over many years Mr Gauci was interviewed more than 50 times and produced over 20 different statements before he arrived at his eventual “identification” for the court.

Conclusive documentary and witness evidence now proves that since 1989 Mr Gauci had regularly expressed an interest in monetary reward for giving evidence at the trial and that eventually he was paid $2 million with the full knowledge of the UK and Scottish authorities.

Forget the complexities. I would be interested in hearing from anyone who can, from these simple facts, come to any conclusion other than Mr Gauci’s evidence is so seriously compromised as to be worthless and that, as a result, a critical plank of the prosecution case is left without a shred of credibility.

Logic would also appear to dictate that our Scottish Government seeks an immediate inquiry into why prevarication and procrastination have become the default position of the authorities for nearly 25 years.

Maltese Foreign Minister sure al-Megrahi was innocent

[A report in today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times reads as follows:]

Foreign Minister George Vella said this evening that he was sure that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing 25 years ago, was actually innocent.

The comment was the most direct by a serving Maltese foreign minister about the controversial conviction, based around the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper and his brother.

Speaking on Times Talk, Dr Vella said the government did not intend to point fingers at one country or other, but in view of the evidence that was emerging, he personally felt that the case needed to be heard once more before new judges in the interests of justice, not least that of al-Megrahi, even though he had now passed away.

However, as a country, Malta had good relations with the countries involved, including the US and the UK. The situation in Libya had also changed in 25 years, and Malta therefore had nothing to gain in pushing the case once more.

Dr Vella said his personal belief was that the bomb which downed the Pan-Am Boeing 747 over Lockerbie in Scotland was a revenge attack after an Iranian passenger aircraft was shot down by a US warship in 1988.

Earlier in the programme, lawyer Giannella de Marco said there was never any evidence to back the claim that the Lockerbie bomb was loaded on an Air Malta flight from Malta to Frankfurt and then to London for the Pan-Am jumbo.

All the luggage loaded on the Air Malta aircraft in question had been accounted for and there were no unaccompanied bags.

Dr Vella agreed, and said that once there was no evidence that the bomb started its journey in Malta, one could never find Malta-based Abdelbaset al-Megrahi guilty. Nor did it make sense that of the two accused, one was convicted and another one, Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima was acquitted.

With regard to reward money promised to Tony and Paul Gauci for their evidence in the Lockerbie trial, Dr Vella said that at no stage did the Gauci brothers actually request money.

Dr de Marco said there was evidence that the statements by the Gaucis changed several times, there was talk of reward money and money was given. Tony Gauci gave several versions of his description of Megrahi. One could not depend on a person who was inconsistent and was paid at the end of his evidence. 

Jim Swire, the father of one of passengers who died on the doomed Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, said he was convinced that the type of bomb used could not have been loaded on an aircraft from Malta or Frankfurt as it would otherwise have exploded earlier. 

[ A further report in the same newspaper reads as follows:]

Former Tourism Minister Michael Refalo said today that the way how the investigations ahead of the Lockerbie trial were conducted had led him to believe, early on, that there were people who did not want the process to reach its proper conclusion.

Dr Refalo recalled how his evidence, which contradicted evidence by Tony Gauci, was ignored. Mr Gauci had said, for example, that the Christmas lights were on whereas his diary entry showed how he had, as Tourism Minister, switched them on at a later date.

At one time, the investigators told him they could not question him earlier because they could not find him - even though he was a Cabinet Minister and thus easily traced.

Then he was told in 2008 that his evidence was lost.

Dr Refalo said he kept a copy of the evidence, but the investigators still wanted to hear the evidence all over again.

All these goings on led him to wonder about conspiracy theories, more so as the type of bomb used to down the Pan Am airliner was not supplied to Libya, but to Iran. 

The Scottish Criminal [Cases] Review Commission showed how Megrahi should have actually been acquitted.

Dr Refalo said that now that the Lockerbie findings had been discredited, especially where Malta was concerned, the government should not seek to reopen the case in any way.

[The following extracts from the programme can be viewed online:

“Is there a Maltese connection?”

Dr Jim Swire’s views

Confronting Tony Gauci

Minister of Tourism in 1988 sheds some light.]

Deep scepticism about ethics and legality of Gauci payments

[The Scotsman today carries a letter from Ian Johnstone in response to yesterday’s article in which a lead Lockerbie investigator claimed that the payments to the Gauci brothers were “absolutely above board”. It reads as follows:]

Whatever contentions are made about the “correctness” of paying the Gauci brothers in recognition of their witness ­testimony in the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity (your report, 25 November) there remains deep scepticism about the ethics and UK legality of such conduct.

The importation of United States legal practices into aspects of what was essentially a Scottish criminal case at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands is questionable from the outset.

Practices such as plea bargaining and witness testimony payment, which occur, though not straightforwardly, in US legal processes, are subject to much circumspection of legal proceedings in Scotland.

The technicalities of payments to the Maltese brothers – as to whether these complied with proper legal standards and did not breach bribery codes of conduct, or otherwise – will stay in a fine balance of ethical observation probably until a number of other answers are provided for questions relating to contentious issues about the Lockerbie trial.

A prominent Austrian philosopher, Hans Koechler, who was appointed as one of five international observers at the trial by then United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, is well documented in querying the US Justice Department supervisory role in the Scottish prosecution team.

Mr Koechler said it was his opinion that there seemed to be considerable political influence on the judges and the verdict.

It was, and still is, a view shared by many people who are not so disposed to issue a clean sheet to the Lockerbie trial and verdict.

[I submitted a letter in the following terms to The Scotsman which the newspaper has not run, wisely, in the light of Mr Johnstone’s much better one:]

In your report “Lockerbie reward payouts ‘above board’” (25 November) lead Lockerbie investigator Tom McCulloch states that the payments to two Maltese witnesses were “absolutely above board”. They were not.

Following his newspaper’s gaining access to a document detailing Scottish investigators’ dealings with the Maltese witnesses, a journalist asked me the following questions:

1.      Is it legal for investigators to take this sort of role in relation to witnesses?

2.      Can witnesses be paid in relation to evidence given in a criminal trial under Scottish law?

3.      What is your opinion about the practice?

4.      I would also like your comment on the subtle implications in the passage [from the document] I am quoting above.

Here are my answers which, I believe, set out the true position in Scots law:

1. It is not today actually illegal.  It once was, and would lead to the witness being barred from giving evidence in court. Today, it is a practice that is frowned upon and is a matter that should always be disclosed to the defence since it is a factor that will affect the court's assessment of the credibility of the witness's evidence.  It is not the actual payment after the trial that is important, it's the fact that before the trial he was enquiring of the investigating authorities about the possibility of payment.  That is a matter that the prosecution (the police in Scotland are the agents of the prosecution) have a duty to disclose to the defence. They did not do so.  This is just one of the many instances of material helpful to the defence being improperly withheld.

2. It is not illegal to pay witnesses after the trial is over. But it is something that should never be discussed with a witness before or during the trial.  If a witness raises the issue with the police or the prosecution, the only proper response is to say that this is a matter that simply cannot be discussed. While the investigating authorities in this case may not actually have promised payment, it is clear that the matter was discussed as a possibility. That was improper.  As soon as the issue was raised, the investigators should have stated that this was a matter that they simply could not discuss.

3. It is a dangerous and disreputable practice. Where it occurs, it must be disclosed to the defence. In this case, the authorities did everything in their power to conceal it, including "mislaying" Harry Bell's diary until it was eventually unearthed by the SCCRC in the course of their investigation of the Megrahi conviction.

4. It is a quite shocking document. It refers to the witness's "loyalty". The duty of the police and prosecution is not to secure or to seek a witness's loyalty to the prosecution case, but to try to secure that he tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without fear or favour.

Equally shocking is this passage: "the witnesses, who are the subject of this report, will maintain their current position and not seek to make adverse comment regarding any perceived lack of recognition of their position. Nor is it anticipated would they ever seek to highlight any remuneration received." It is no part of an investigator's or prosecutor's function to seek to secure that a witness maintains his current position. To try to influence a witness, or secure benefits for him, to achieve this result is grossly improper. The passage also recognises that it is important that the remuneration arrangement should not be "highlighted". This manifests a clear, and correct, understanding that the arrangement is not one that would meet with legal or public approbation.

Lockerbie reward payouts ‘above board’

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

A lead investigator in the Lockerbie bombing inquiry has insisted that reward payments handed to two key witnesses after the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi were “absolutely above board”, despite allegations that the pair gave testimonies in the knowledge they would be paid. [RB: Only Tony Gauci gave evidence at the trial.  The payment to his brother, Paul, was for his efforts in maintaining Tony’s resolve.] 

Tom McCulloch was speaking after a Maltese newspaper published extracts of police documents that said Mr Gauci had a “clear desire to gain financial benefit” from his ­evidence.

Mr McCulloch said the decision by the American authorities to give Tony Gauci $2 million (£1.2m) and his brother Paul $1m was entirely in keeping with the US Department of Justice policy. [RB: What matters is not "US Department of Justice policy" but Scottish criminal law and practice and the integrity of the investigative and prosecution process.]

It follows the publication of new documents last month by author John Ashton that suggest Mr Gauci made it clear before the trial in 2000 that he wanted to be remunerated for his crucial evidence. 

Former Libyan intelligence officer Megrahi was jailed in January 2001 over the bombing of Pam Am Flight 103 in December 1988, which led to the deaths of 270 people. He was later released and died in Tripoli in May 2012.

Mr Gauci’s evidence was key because he identified a number of clothes fragments found at the crash site as having been brought from his shop in Sliema. Mr McCulloch, a former detective chief superintendent with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, last night told The Scotsman that cash had “never been discussed with them at 
any time” prior to Megrahi’s conviction.

As the lead investigator into the atrocity, he wrote to the US Department of Justice (DoJ) in April 2002 to recommend the pair receive a reward of $3m because he said the Gaucis fitted the criteria for its Reward for Justice programme. He added: “All proceedings were complete before I nominated the Gauci brothers for consideration.”

Documents released since the trial have repeatedly suggested that the Gaucis expressed an interest in being paid for their testimony under the DoJ scheme from an early stage – which critics say questions its reliability.

Mr McCulloch said that the brothers would have known about possible payments, but that nothing was offered at any stage before the trial.

He said: “From the outset, the Department of Justice had floated the idea of a reward to anyone who came forward… [but] it had never been discussed with them at any time prior to [the trial] – so it’s absolutely above board. There is absolutely no suggestion that there was anything underhand. It was all above board.”

The Crown Office stated last month: “No witness was offered any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before and during the trial and there is no evidence that any other law ­enforcement agency offered such an inducement.”

[The relevant extracts from the document in question can be read here, in the section headed “He is worthy of reward”.  Last week I was asked by The Sunday Times of Malta to comment on this document.  Here is what I wrote to the journalist:]

You ask: “My questions are:

1.      Is it legal for investigators to take this sort of role in relation to witnesses?
2.      Can witnesses be paid in relation to evidence given in a criminal trial under Scottish law?
3.      What is your opinion about the practice?
4.      I would also like your comment on the subtle implications in the passage I am quoting above.”

My answers are:

1. It is not today actually illegal.  It once was, and would lead to the witness being barred from giving evidence in court. Today, it is a practice that is frowned upon and is a matter that should always be disclosed to the defence since it is a factor that will affect the court's assessment of the credibility of the witness's evidence.  It is not the actual payment after the trial that is important, it's the fact that brfore the trial he was enquiring of the investigating authorities about the possibility of payment.  That is a matter that the the prosecution (the police in Scotland are the agents of the prosecution) have a duty to disclose to the defence. They did not do so.  This is just one of the many instances of material helpful to the defence being improperly withheld.
2. It is not illegal to pay witnesses after the trial is over. But it is something that should never be discussed with a witness before or during the trial.  If a witness raises the issue with the police or the prosecution, the only proper response is to say that this is a matter that simply cannot be discussed. While the investigating authorities in this case may not actually have promised payment, it is clear that the matter was discussed as a possibility. That was improper.  As soon as the issue was raised, the investigators should have stated that this was a matter that they simply could not discuss.
3. It is a dangerous and disreputable practice. Where it occurs, it must be disclosed to the defence. In this case, the authorities did everything in their power to conceal it, including "mislaying" Harry Bell's diary until it was eventually unearthed by the SCCRC in the course of their investigation of the Megrahi conviction.
4. It is a quite shocking document. It refers to the witness's "loyalty". The duty of the police and prosecution is not to secure or to seek a witness's loyalty to the prosecution case, but to try to secure that he tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, without fear or favour.
Equally shocking is this passage: "the witnesses, who are the subject of this report, will maintain their current position and not seek to make adverse comment regarding any perceived lack of recognition of their position. Nor is it anticipated would they ever seek to highlight any remuneration received." It is no part of an investigator's or prosecutor's function to seek to secure that a witness maintains his current position. To try to influence a witness, or secure benefits for him, to achieve this result is grossly improper. The passage also recognises that it is important that the remuneration arrangement should not be "highlighted". This manifests a clear, and correct, understanding that the arrangement is not one that would meet with legal or public approbation.