CIA’s Lockerbie role must be reviewed

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

The trial of two Libyans in Zeist in 2000 over the Lockerbie atrocity first convinced some UK relatives and exp­erts in criminal law that we were not seeing a fair trial, but a cynical intelligence-led perversion of the Scottish criminal justice system.

For instance, the prosecution alleged that the bomb had been placed aboard a plane in Malta, and transferred at Frankfurt and 
Heathrow to the target plane on which our families died.

This clearly would have requir­ed a long-running timer, and a fragment of 
circuit board allegedly from such a timer was duly led in evidence in court.

However, post-trial, we now know, and have independent scientific proof, that the technology used to 
create that fragment was fundamentally different from that used in the Libyan 
timers allegedly powering the Lockerbie bomb, and simply could not have come from one of them.

The fragment was claimed to have been found by UK forensic “experts” within a Scottish police evidence bag.

The crash site had been overrun by CIA agents immediately after the crash and potentially evidential material visibly tampered with. The Scottish police were working in close contact with the CIA throughout the investigation.

Neither the UK nor the Scottish Governments have been prepared to listen to our constant pleas since the trial for an inquiry into the whole case.

Now that it seems clear that at least some sections of the CIA using a remarkable degree of autonomy from their executive had long cast any moral restraint aside, is it not high time that their management of the Lockerbie evidence also be re-examined?

It is not simply that we relatives have a right to know the whole truth; the verdict of that court must have been a powerful factor in “justifying” the Nato bombing of Libya, which has resulted in such misery to that unfortunate country, to the rise of Isis training camps round Bengazi and the redistribution of Libyan arms to terrorists throughout much of the Sahel region.

I do not believe that the UK and US Governments would want to try to conceal such wicked actions by their own intelligence services and 
police if the leaders only knew of them.

To take positive action to objectively review their 
intelligence management of the Lockerbie atrocity might alleviate a great deal of unnecessary ongoing suffering for us even now.

It might also offer a golden opportunity to lay blame, if blame there truly be, where it is properly due.

That could then underpin improvements in the behaviour and status of our nations in the future.

We are not going to abandon our search for the truth, – far better to lance the boil now rather than let more hostile agencies do it later.

I believe that if he knew about this further intelligence scandal, then in the spirit of his great Cairo speech following his election, President Obama would not want this concealed one moment longer.

Fourth meeting between Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland

[What follows is a précis of the fourth meeting held between the Justice for Megrahi Police Scotland Liaison Group and officers of Police Scotland at Tulliallan on 24th November 2014. Reports on the earlier meetings can be found here and here and here.]

Present:

Justice for Megrahi (JfM):  Iain McKie; James Robertson.

Police Scotland: Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone; Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone; Detective Chief Inspector Scott Cunningham.

Apologies: Len Murray.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Agenda:

This is the fourth meeting held to facilitate liaison between Police Scotland and JfM in respect of the ongoing investigation by Police Scotland into JfM’s complaint of 9 criminal allegations made in September 2012.

DCC Livingstone introduced the meeting and welcomed those present whilst acknowledging the apology sent by Len Murray due to illness.

He referred to the previous meeting held on 29th September 2014; despite neither himself nor James Robertson being present, he acknowledged this still provided opportunity for meaningful dialogue and discussion on the progress of the enquiry and that much of the discussion at the last meeting focused on what is essentially the conclusion, meantime, of enquiries into Allegation 8.

It was agreed by both parties that the précis of the last meeting was accurate for submission to the Justice Committee and DCC Livingstone confirmed he would update the JC convener’s clerk.  The confidential meeting record was also discussed to be agreed.

DCC Livingstone confirmed that a meeting with the appointed independent QC had been arranged for early December 2014 to discuss the draft report in relation to Allegation 8.

D Supt Johnstone referred to the close relationship between Police Scotland and JfM; this allowed for open and frank discussion which had been, and would continue to be recorded in an agreed confidential record of meetings, with also a subsequent agreed précis for public release.  JfM were in full agreement with this and emphasised the importance of keeping certain discussions confidential.

DCC Livingstone reiterated that consideration was ongoing in terms of the necessity and proportionality of interviewing witnesses, and that the matter of interviewing witnesses would be considered by the investigating officers and actioned if deemed necessary.  JfM, acknowledging this, however stated they expected in principle that witnesses would require to be interviewed at some stage.

DCC Livingstone added that as these were unique circumstances the appointment of an independent QC provided the police investigation with an appropriate level of scrutiny prior to reporting the findings to Crown Office, which was clearly not the normal procedure.  It was again emphasised that this was a key relationship and preparatory work was underway prior to the next formal meeting with the QC.  

JfM highlighted their desire to discuss the findings of the police investigation at the conclusion and acknowledged although they may not be in full agreement or entirely satisfied with the findings, they appreciated a thorough investigation was ongoing.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that the analytical research had been opened out and wider reaching including analysis of publications by Morag Kerr, John Ashton along with the JfM allegations.  A document listing 64 assertions had been compiled which was particularly complex and included key areas of forensics, 3 airports security and movement of baggage.  This was identified as the largest body of work due to the sheer volume of information and documentation.

D Supt Johnstone highlighted that there was a good relationship with the SCCRC who are assisting the police investigation with providing relevant documentation and information, where necessary.

Police Scotland also confirmed that to date, there has been no dialogue with Crown Office in relation to the police investigation into the 9 allegations made by JfM.

JfM emphasised that it was critical that the present level of trust was maintained with Police Scotland and that this should not be jeopardised by either party.

Although not directly linked to their criminal allegations JfM raised concerns about a perceived lack of follow up treatment by the authorities for police officers and others who had been traumatised as a result of their Lockerbie related duties. It appeared as if a number had suffered from post traumatic stress and other psychological and emotional reactions and these effects had not been effectively monitored and treated by the various responsible authorities. They felt that these issues were worthy of recognition and comment. DCC Livingstone acknowledged this concern and outlined how Police Scotland were alert to such issues and had built in welfare procedures to identify, diagnose and care for those officers who suffered such reactions.

The JfM representatives asked Police Scotland to confirm in respect of their enquiries into the ‘timer’ fragment found at Lockerbie, whose provenance had subsequently been challenged by JfM in their allegations, that should these challenges be upheld, would further enquiry then be made into the evidence of the witnesses who allegedly found the fragment and who had subsequently handled and analysed it.

DCC Livingstone explained that while he would not go into detail about any aspect of their investigation, no legitimate lines of enquiry arising from their investigations would be excluded.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that a specific timeline was being compiled in relation to ‘evidence’ related to the “bomb” used in the atrocity.

The matter of forensic issues and experts was raised by JfM. D Supt Johnstone explained there were several areas which would require independent forensic experts.

In terms of the projection of the police investigation, D Supt Johnstone indicated this would progress well into 2015.  Additional expert support was being provided by the National Crime Agency emphasising the degree of specialist support to the police investigation.

Conclusion

JFM representatives stated they were satisfied with the updates and with the process whereby a confidential record of discussions is maintained and circulated to both parties, and an agreed précis released to the public.  It was agreed to hold the next meeting around February 2015.

Both parties agreed that the positive relationship and mutual trust which had been built was apparent and that the discussions continued to be open, frank and extremely beneficial.

Seminal article on political background to Lockerbie

On this date in 2011, I reproduced on this blog excerpts from Davina Miller’s seminal article Who Knows About This? Western Policy Towards Iran: The Lockerbie Case. This is perhaps the most important, detailed and unbiased account yet written about the political background to the Lockerbie atrocity. For anyone with a genuine interest in the case, it is required reading.

CIA, Lockerbie and perverting the course of justice

[What follows is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today’s edition of The Herald:]

In the Lockerbie trial at Zeist the CIA was the major provider of evidence to the Scottish police nominally in charge of the investigation.

From day one CIA agents were observed removing and interfering with potentially evidential material at the crash site, unimpeded by any scene-of-crime precautions.

During the trial a sliver of circuit board was produced in court, allegedly found at the crash site and discovered within a Scottish police evidence bag. The bag was seen to have had its label interfered with. The court accepted that the sliver had come from a long running bomb timer owned by Libya.

What the court did not know was that the sliver of circuit board had been manufactured using technology which had not been in use with manufacturers until the early 1990s, years after Lockerbie, and so could not have been from the wreckage in 1988. To the court it seemed strongly to support the prosecution case that the bomb had travelled all the way from Malta, courtesy of such a timer.

Those who seek the truth over Lockerbie, would like to know who made this clearly anachronistic fragment, what their motive was and how it came to be found within an official Scottish police evidence bag, thus apparently deliberately assisting in perverting the course of justice.

Hitherto both the Scottish and UK Governments have refused objective and comprehensive review of the tragedy; now is America's chance to define the role of the CIA in this dreadful case.

By assisting the court in reaching a guilty verdict against a Libyan, the scene was set for the subsequent NATO bombing of Libya, which led to the murder of Gaddafi, the collapse of Libya into an anarchy where thousands have died, and where ISIS is now able to run training camps in the East of the country, while the country's armories have been looted to supply terror groups throughout the Sahel region.

This apparent perversion of justice through CIA actions appears to have led to results which have killed more people even than those horribly murdered in 9/11.

If America wishes to overcome the CIA's deep stain on her reputation for freedom and fairness, as at least some of her senators and her President seem to want to do, she will need to investigate just how far back the CIA first became a semi-autonomous rogue organisation.

The senate's investigations must now be extended back in time to cover all aspects of the Lockerbie bombing, the truth of which so many in the Arab world already believe has been deliberately concealed to this day for political reasons, by the West.

Enough of the present Senate report has been left unredacted to show not only that the limits of the law were far exceeded, but that a culture free from the restraints of honesty or integrity had been accepted without question by many in the service.

"A freak show extension of foreign policy"?

[What follows is excerpted from an article by William Paul published in Scotland on Sunday on 12 December 1999:]

So it begins. The two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing have appeared before the special Scottish court in the Netherlands and the process of justice according to Scots law must run its course in all its ponderous panoply.

If doubters still regard the whole affair as some kind of international cover-up, the sight of Lord Sutherland in his cream and crimson robes following the mace-bearer to a high-backed leather chair at a makeshift bench in the corner of an old American gymnasium should have clearly demonstrated that the politicians and diplomats are no longer in control. Any covert agreement brokered by the United Nations to limit the scope of evidence or ignore the more embarrassing past behaviour of a country’s security services is worthless. If it exists, as has been suggested, the signatories are fooling themselves. Now that the law has taken over, unpredictability reigns and there can be no guarantees.

Last week in the Netherlands, the defence QCs at a preliminary hearing acknowledged they were "not arguing about points of fact, but points of law" as they attempted to have the first charge of conspiracy to murder dropped from the indictment.  (...)

If the conspiracy happened abroad then the Scottish court, despite being deliberately set up outside Scotland for the purposes of neutrality, would not have jurisdiction. 

Lord Sutherland dismissed the argument as "illogical" but was also mindful that it was not the affront to common sense it seemed, but contained its own compelling brand of legal logic. He therefore allowed an appeal against his judgment where the issues will once again be rehearsed in open court. The whole trial, when it actually gets under way in May, more than a year after the Libyans surrendered to answer the charges against them, will be like this; a self-conscious display of scrupulous fairness and attention to detail, an obsessive desire to appreciate opposing points of view, and a firm insistence that justice will be seen to be done. 

Scotland has already settled in well to the little part of foreign land it has been allocated Kamp van Zeist, a former American military base that is now an outdoor museum – for the approaching trial. With the courtroom proper still under construction, Kamp van Zeist’s gymnasium was pressed into service last week as temporary accommodation for preliminary legal skirmishes. No sooner had the QCs crossed the line with Dutch politie on one side and Scots police on the other, than they donned their wigs and gowns and paired off to pace up and down just as they traditionally do in Parliament Hall at the Supreme Courts in Edinburgh to prevent their conversations being overheard. In another part, where US airmen had whiled away the Cold War playing basketball, academics from Glasgow University patiently explained the legal system to a knowledge-hungry international media, including a couple of Russians who nodded knowingly at the motto to the lion and unicorn coat-of-arms, Nemo Me Impune Lacessit. 

Beyond the partition wall in the bottom quarter of the gym, the press were divided from the legal teams by the kind of red-twisted rope that usually guards antique furniture in stately homes, and the lawyers were divided from the accused by bullet-proof screens on wheels. 

The Libyans, always immaculately groomed, were led in and out from the underground detention area to the dock by Scottish police officers holding their wrists. Interpreters sat beside them whispering translations of arcane legal terms and Latin phrases in their ears, occasionally gesticulating with a dramatic wave of an arm or the raising of eyebrows at apparently unimportant moments. Megrahi, the older of the two accused, sat throughout wearing an overcoat as if the winter cold was somehow penetrating the windowless walls surrounding him. 

It will be much like this in the courtroom for the duration of the trial – six months or two years, no-one really knows – as the prosecution evidence is presented and the past is recreated in a hundred small cameo episodes that build, it will be claimed, into the worst terrorist outrage of an era when the world was ordered very differently. 

The framework for what is to come is contained in the narrative of the indictment which sets out the course of events that the Crown will seek to prove, in particular that the two accused were agents of the Libyan Intelligence Service, acting in concert with others and travelling around to gather electronic timers and components for the bomb that was eventually to be loaded into the hold of Flight 103. Colin Boyd QC, Solicitor General, last week gave a hint of what will be claimed by briefly describing an agent, using a false passport, embarking on a ‘dry run’ on the route from Libya to Malta to Germany one month before the bombing in December 1988. 

It promises to be compelling stuff, related to the outside world principally by newspaper reports since the only television coverage so far agreed will be closed-circuit links to Syracuse University in the US for American victims’ families, and a location in London for British relatives.

The effectiveness of Scots law will be as much under test as the guilt or innocence of the two Libyans. The international understanding, replete with secret meetings and nudge-nudge assurances, was crucial in bringing about this unprecedented trial, but if the Libyan government thought its intelligence service would be above criticism, and if the US government thought its intelligence agents would not be required to account for their actions, they will very soon be disabused of the notion. The law, once set in motion, can be relentless in drawing out a infinite number of competing strands in its attempts to find the truth, and what is said in court can be reported without restraint 

Juries are regarded as the ‘masters of the facts’ compared with the judges’ role as ‘master of the law’. Since there is to be no jury in this case, the burden is on Lord Sutherland and his two colleagues to be masters of both and ensure that all doubts are dispelled before a verdict is reached. 

There were many people who believed a Lockerbie trial would never happen because powerful vested interests did not want it. There are still sceptics who see the whole thing as a freak show extension of foreign policy, a forum for political manipulation rather than honest disclosure. The former were proved wrong, and so will the latter be. Open court is a very dangerous place for those who prefer to inhabit the shadows. The simple principle of ‘having their day in court’ is not confined to the Libyan accused who hope to prove their innocence. It is also there for the bereaved families who, four days before Christmas, must endure the 11th anniversary of the bombing hoping they will soon know the real story of what happened to Flight 103. 

The outcome is, of course, entirely unpredictable whatever expert authorities may say. Whether the truth will be uncovered is unknowable because, as was argued last week, it is as much to do with the law as it is to do with the facts. The Scottish court in the Netherlands can only do its best, according to the rules of law, by examining the strength of the evidence put in front of it. In the final analysis, whatever the verdict at the end of it all, people will make up their own minds.

[RB: Like the author, I too in 1999 would have said: “There were many people who believed a Lockerbie trial would never happen because powerful vested interests did not want it. There are still sceptics who see the whole thing as a freak show extension of foreign policy, a forum for political manipulation rather than honest disclosure. The former were proved wrong, and so will the latter be.”  To the immense discredit of the Scottish criminal justice system, William Paul and I have been shown to be both wrong and naive. Honest disclosure (by the prosecution) did not happen. Was there political manipulation? Possibly. What there certainly was, were findings on the evidence -- and hence a conviction -- that no reasonable court could have arrived at.]

Torture, rendition and UK Government hypocrisy

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Derek Bateman headed Why Britain shares America's torture shame published yesterday on the Newsnet Scotland website:]

The trouble is that witness after witness has averred that British officials were associated with their kidnap, rendition and torture, sometimes intimately so. At first officially, there was ‘no British involvement’. Then there was a stopover at Diego Garcia. Then we heard of refuelling at Prestwick.

Liberty says: ‘We now know that during the War on Terror many people were unlawfully transferred from one territory to another in circumstances where they were subjected to torture, horrendous conditions of imprisonment and ill-treatment…in 2008 officials stated they were unsure how many other times such flights had passed through British airspace. This is despite previously consistent denials by the government of any such use of UK airspace.’ (...)

If you imagine the detainees all to be committed jihadist killers, it seems that as many as 26 were ‘wrongly held’, notoriously among them the al-Saadi family. They were rendered en masse (or en famille) to Libya in 2004 - Sami, an anti-Gaddafi dissident, his wife Karima and their four children, the eldest 12 and the youngest just six.

A pregnant woman was also rendered. She was Fatima Bouchard and she provides another link with the Labour government because after her forced return to Libya along with her husband where they were jailed, Britain was proud of its efforts in helping. So much so, that MI6 agent Mark Allen sent a letter to the Libyan regime to congratulate them on the arrival of their ‘air cargo’ (the Libyan couple).

The letter was addressed to the head of security in Libya Musa Kusa. He arrived in London after defecting and was set free, presumably because he had been an asset to Britain who couldn’t be allowed to talk about the nature of UK contacts with Gaddafi.

He was also the key figure who would have known the truth about any Libyan involvement in the Lockerbie Bombing. But while Megrahi was pursued and jailed, the security chief was released.

This convoluted snakes and ladders is the stuff of what passes for modern diplomacy and it shows that ‘national interest’ is a shifting and sinewy creature wriggling wherever the dark is to be found.

We only discovered after the release, courtesy of Sir Gus O’Donnell, Cabinet Secretary, that it had been British policy to aid the release of Megrahi all along. This had been made known to the Cabinet which at the time included Jim Murphy as Scottish Secretary. But no one made this information public. Meanwhile Iain Gray was roundly lambasting the SNP government for letting Megrahi go apparently unaware that his Labour colleague Murphy already knew it was government policy. (When I tried to get Murphy to admit this, he failed three times to respond.)

So there is a history of the Cabinet having knowledge of security issues and keeping quiet, which is what I believe happened over torture rendition -  the British State knowingly staged kidnappings and illegal transport of victims for a torture regime and, in the spirit of outsourcing, gave questions to the torturers to ask…that’s our government…our LABOUR government. That is as shameful as water-boarding and cattle prods and puts us side by side with the torturers themselves. Labour – ‘Britain’s democratic socialist party…’

“We need truth and we need justice to be at peace"

What follows is an item posted on this blog on this date four years ago:

It is imperative for the survivors of Lockerbie that we continue to search for the truth

[This is the heading over a letter from Ruth Marr in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

Professor James Mitchell is correct to praise the Scottish Government for refusing to be bullied and by taking the decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds, but he is perhaps understandably pessimistic regarding getting answers to the questions which, almost 22 years later, continue to haunt the Lockerbie tragedy (“WikiLeaks proves Scotland was right on Megrahi release”, The Herald, December 10).

However, it is absolutely imperative for the sake of the families of the victims, for the town of Lockerbie, for all who care about the Scottish justice system and, indeed, for Megrahi, that we probe to get the relevant answers, because until we do, all those whose lives were changed for ever by that horrific crime cannot hope to try to move on.

Father Pat Keegans, who narrowly escaped death at Lockerbie, has concisely and poignantly summed up the situation when he said: “We need truth and we need justice to be at peace. Otherwise we are back in December 1988 in the darkness.” It is for those reasons that a full, independent public inquiry must be held to determine all the facts, and answer the many troubling questions surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and the conviction of Megrahi for the crime.

All those lost at Lockerbie, and those they left behind, deserve nothing less than truth and justice, and we must not fail them now.

[A further letter in the same newspaper from John Scott Roy reads as follows:]

What a refreshing article by Professor James Mitchell in which he summarises many of the reasons for people to distrust politicians as a group. Their cynical behaviour is well exposed by the examples he provides.

The SNP Government is praised, to some extent. It has not been in power long enough for the infection to have taken full root.

Old habits die hard: Washington, Gaddafi and Lockerbie

[The following is an excerpt from the fifth and final part of an interesting and instructive article A message from Tripoli: How Libya gave up its WMD by William Tobey published earlier this week on the website of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:]

In the immediate aftermath, Libya benefited from its decision to give up its WMD capabilities, although perhaps not as much or as quickly as Qaddafi had hoped. On May 15, 2006, the United States announced it would restore full diplomatic relations with Tripoli. After Libya agreed to provide $2.7 billion in reparations to the families of victims of Pan Am flight 103, Bush removed Libya from his list of state sponsors of terrorism and dropped all economic sanctions. Before the rebellion, foreign investment, particularly in the oil sector, flooded into Libya. In October 2007, Libya was elected to a two-year term on the United Nations Security Council.

Old habits, however, die hard. Washington was furious after learning in 2004, for example, that Qaddafi’s had attempted the previous year to assassinate Saudi King Abdullah. In August 2009, the release from Scottish prison of a dying former Libyan intelligence agent convicted in the Pan Am 103 case, his enthusiastic welcome in Tripoli, and recriminations over a possible quid pro quo involving British investment in Libya’s oil industry re-opened diplomatic wounds that had barely begun to heal. Qaddafi’s rambling diatribe at the United Nations General Assembly in September, 2009—so long that it caused his interpreter to collapse—suggested that the brother-leader remained as eccentric as ever, even if he was now only conventionally armed.

On October 20, 2011, Muammar Qaddafi was pulled from a ditch during the battle for Sirte and killed by rebels supported by the United States, Britain, and France.

Tony Blair's "assurances" of independent Lockerbie inquiry

[What follows is taken from an item posted on Safia Aoude’s The Pan Am 103 Crash Website on 10 December 1998 based on Reuters news agency reports:]

The father of one of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing said on Thursday the 10th of December 1998 he felt certain Libya would hand over two suspects in the case for trial soon, probably within weeks. Jim Swire, whose daughter was among 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, said he had spoken by telephone to a Libyan official earlier on Thursday.

"I've had an encouraging phone call from Libya's permanent representative to the United Nations only today," Swire told BBC television.  "And I see nothing on the horizon that would make me alter my opinion, which is that the handover will definitely occur, and that it will occur within the next few weeks." (...)

Swire, who was scheduled to meet British Prime Minister Tony Blair later on Thursday, said he would urge that any new leads arising from the trial be followed up. "The two accused, even if they were found guilty, could only be small minnows in a very large pond," he said. 

Later that day (10 Dec 1988) Dr Swire finally met the UK prime minister Tony Blair. The meeting came less than two weeks before the 10th anniversary of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which killed 270 people.  It was the first time a prime minister had agreed to meet  relatives of the disaster. The members of the UK Families Flight 103 Group, led by Dr Jim Swire, spent 50 minutes at Downing Street with Mr Blair and Foreign Office Minister Tony  Lloyd.  Lockerbie's MP, Russell Brown, and another Labour backbencher, Dr George Turner, were also at the meeting.

Dr Jim Swire, spokesman of the UK Families Group, said he wanted to thank Mr Blair for persuading the United States to accept the idea of a trial in a neutral third country. He said it was this concession which had broken the deadlock. Dr Swire and the British relatives have been told by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair he will do everything he can to find out the truth about the disaster.

Dr Swire told BBC News he was "certain" the two prime suspects would be given up by the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and he said when the trial began he wanted the government to follow up several news lines of inquiry.  Dr Swire, whose daughter Flora died at Lockerbie, said he also wanted a new inquiry to investigate how the bomb got on board the aircraft.

Dr Swire said he had received assurances from the prime minister that there would be an independent inquiry into the disaster.  He told BBC News 24: "He was very receptive to the idea and we came away much encouraged that there will be a meaningful inquiry at some stage.

"We were left with the impression that there would be the necessary investigation into how this appalling tragedy happened in 1988," said Swire.

"We feel without such an investigation the door is open to this happening again." [RB: Whatever assurances about an inquiry were given by Tony Blair were never honoured.]

Dr Swire said Libya's permanent representative to the United Nations, Omar Dorda, had rung him on Thursday and he said he was confident the two prime suspects would be handed over by the Libyan leader, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, "within the next few weeks". "The best estimate is a few weeks," said Swire. "Possibly the latter half of January." [RB: In fact the suspects surrendered themselves for trial in April 1999.]

A Downing Street spokesman said: "Mr Blair briefed them on the latest developments on the progress towards a third country trial.

"The families want to discover the whole truth and the prime minister is committed to bring these men to justice and discover the truth."

Megrahi, Fhimah and the Crown Office's "live enquiry"

What follows is taken from an item posted on this blog on this date in 2011:

Scottish police will be invited to Tripoli to question Megrahi

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

Libya will invite Scottish police officers to Tripoli to interview the former Libyan agent convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, according to Britain’s foreign minister Alastair Burt.

The move, which could see Dumfries and Galloway police travel to Libya shortly to speak with Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi, was welcomed by Scotland’s most senior law officer the Lord Advocate Frank Mullholland QC. (...)

Yesterday Megrahi’s brother Nasser said the former Libyan agent, who is suffering from prostate cancer, was too sick to be interviewed by British investigators. (...)

[A report in today's edition of The Guardian contains the following:]

Libyan suspect Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, cleared of bombing in 2000, could face fresh trial – but victims' families are sceptical

The new Libyan government's undertaking will also hearten Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate and chief prosecutor for Scotland, who announced several months ago he was reopening prosecution files on Lockerbie.

New laws on double jeopardy in Scotland, which will allow previously cleared suspects to be tried again, came into force in late November. That would allow prosecutors to attempt a fresh trial of Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi in 2000 in the Lockerbie case but was cleared by the court.

In August, Fhimah denied any links to the atrocity and insisted he too was a victim of Gaddafi, but some US relatives have pressed for both men to be handed over to the US for a fresh trial – moves the Libyans have brushed away.

Mulholland said yesterday: "The trial court held that the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people was an act of state-sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. This is a live inquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice."

Megrahi's family insisted he was too ill to meet British officials. Nasser al Megrahi, his brother, said he was being cared for by relatives. "He is really ill," he said. "He is in his room, I have not seen him today. He's too tired to see anyone, even us, his family."

He also questioned why Scottish police and prosecutors would want to reopen the case or interview his brother, since the UK authorities had previously agreed to release Megrahi, who is terminally ill with advanced prostate cancer, on compassionate grounds. "Why would they want to reopen the case? That doesn't make sense, it was not the Gaddafi government that made the judgment, it was the Scottish [government]." (...)

Jean Berkley, convenor of the UK Families of Flight 103, said she was pleased that there was renewed interest in the case, but she was not optimistic that a police visit to Tripoli would uncover significant new information. But she said: "We would welcome any attempts to find out more of the truth because we feel that there's a lot we don't know."

Professor Robert Black, the Scottish lawyer who proposed trying Megrahi and Fhimah on neutral ground in the Netherlands, was sceptical that the initiative would lead to a fresh trial. He said if detectives tried to interview Fhimah as a suspect, they would need to apply new Scottish rules requiring his lawyer to be present.

"If they've now got permission to go and look at Libyan archives to see what they can find, fine, but I'm amazed if they think they can go and interview Megrahi: the position of the Crown Office has been we've got Megrahi, we're now looking for others," he said. "I suspect they'll be talking to people who now head the various ministries in Libya to see whether they can find any archives on Lockerbie when it was under the Gaddafi regime."

[A report in today's edition of The Times (behind the paywall) contains the following:] (...)

Crown Office sources indicated yesterday that they had no plans to speak to al-Megrahi, the only man so far convicted of the outrage. Mr Mulholland added: “The trial court held that the bombing of Pan Am 103 and the murder of 270 people was an act of state-sponsored terrorism and that Megrahi did not act alone. This is a live enquiry and Scottish police and prosecutors will continue to pursue the evidence to bring the others involved to justice.”