The beginning of the Camp Zeist fiasco

[On this date fifteen years ago, the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah started at Camp Zeist. What follows is an excerpt from an Associated Press news agency report published that day:]

The trial of two alleged Libyan intelligence agents accused of blowing Pan Am Flight 103 out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 opened today before three Scottish judges at a special court on this former US air base.

A Scottish High Court judge, Lord Ranald Sutherland, opened the proceedings against defendants Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, who surrendered for trial last year following nearly a decade of sanctions against Libya.

Members of the court rose as the judges, wearing white wigs and dressed in flowing ivory robes with embroidered red crosses, were led into the chamber by a sentry bearing a silver mace, the ceremonial staff symbolizing authority in Scottish courts.

The three judges and one reserve judge took their seats on the bench underneath a Scottish royal crest bearing the Latin words: “Nemo me impune lacessit,” which literally means “None dare meddle with me.”

“It is time for justice. We want to hold the government responsible, not these guys,” said Bruce Smith, an American whose British wife, Ingrid, was killed in the crash. “I am convinced that they have a good case against the Libyan government. This should be the start, not the end.”

The trial began with the defendants and lawyers identifying themselves for the judges.

The sleek, state-of-the-art courtroom, built over the past year at a cost of $18 million to British taxpayers, provides computer monitors for all judges, lawyers, defendants, and clerks to view exhibits and follow the court transcript in real time.

Wireless headphones receiving signals from infrared transmitters were available for the defendants to listen to the proceedings via simultaneous translation in Arabic.

For more than 11 years, investigators of the world's worst airliner bombing pursued a trail of evidence across Europe and the Mediterranean to the defendants.

The proceedings, expected to last about a year, follow the largest international murder probe on record, with investigators interviewing 15,000 witnesses in more than 20 countries and sifting through 180,000 pieces of evidence since the midair blast. (...)

Camp Zeist, an old US air base 40 miles southeast of Amsterdam, has been declared Scottish sovereign territory for the duration of the trial.

It was chosen as the venue in a UN-brokered compromise following years of sanctions aimed at forcing Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to hand over the suspects, who were indicted in November 1991.

More than 30 American victims' relatives were getting front-row seats in the public gallery, separated from the court by bulletproof glass. Many other family members could watch via closed-circuit television linkups to sites in Washington, New York, London and Dumfries, Scotland.

For the relatives, the long-awaited start of the trial elicited mixed emotions. It marked a milestone in their crusade for justice for the deaths of their loved ones. But it also raised doubts whether those truly responsible for the crime will be punished.

“I feel a sense of relief and a sense of accomplishment that we pursued it long enough and hard enough,” said Maddy Shapiro, of Stamford, Conn, whose daughter Amy was on Flight 103.

Nevertheless, she expressed concern that even if the men are found guilty, “whatever higher-ups gave the orders” won't be pursued.

“The people who are really responsible are who we are after,” said Kathleen Flynn of Montville, NJ, whose son, John Patrick Flynn, was among the victims.

Relatives believe the bombing plot involved senior figures in the Libyan government as well as other terrorist organizations.

They have also voiced worry over reports that the prosecution case suffered setbacks as a result of contradictory witness statements and inconsistencies in the evidence against the Libyans.

Prosecutors allege that the defendants planted the suitcase rigged with a plastic explosive onto a flight from the Mediterranean island of Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred as unaccompanied luggage onto a feeder flight connecting with Pan Am 103 at Heathrow.

According to Scottish legal experts, the prosecution has no eyewitness who can establish incontrovertibly that the defendants planted a suitcase bomb aboard the doomed airliner.

[Contemporaneous reports on the BBC News website can be read here and here; and the detailed report on The Pan Am 103 Crash Website can be read here.

A diary entry by Dr Jim Swire reads as follows:]

Neither of us [Dr Swire and his wife, Jane] slept last night. Today is the first day of the trial and we both tossed and turned, thinking about Flora. I am acutely aware that I have been on the verge of obsession for a long time. When Flora died, I was engulfed in raw pain. But that has turned to determination for justice. I worry about the effect on my family. I have put such pressure on Jane and yet she has shown such strength. I worry, too, about my children, Catherine and William. They loved their sister dearly but there must be times when they have felt frustrated that the family's focus is forever on Flora. Times when they have wanted to scream: "We are still here." But I know they are with me.

It is stiflingly hot, 77F. We had both brought warm clothes but thankfully Jane has found some short-sleeved shirts. We hold hands as we walk into court. Jane tells me later that she was struck by how the defendants have aged. They are greyer, more gaunt. She says she had an overwhelming desire to walk over, bend down and quietly ask: "Did you do it? Did you take Flora from me?"

She is constantly plagued by thoughts of Flora's last moments. Those 30 seconds it took to fall to earth. She has counted them out many times in the kitchen of our home. She cannot get over not being with her firstborn when Flora needed her most.

I gaze at the defendants. Did they do it? I don't know. I have chosen my seat with care - directly behind the witness stand so that the judges are reminded that I am here. I am utterly taken aback when a special defence is launched. The defendants have cited two organisations and 10 individuals whom they say were responsible for the bomb. I had thought that the trial would cut through the conspiracy theories.

I listen to the details of how the bomb was allegedly planted. Again, I wonder if Flora is proud of me. I have prevented your death becoming a mere statistic, I tell her. I think of the last time I saw her. I insisted on seeing her body. I touched the little mole on her toe and cut a lock of her hair. But she was so lifeless. I think of how she would be now had she lived. A glittering career, babies. Anger wells and I clasp Jane's hand.

Outside the court, there is a round of quick-fire questions from reporters. I sat up late last night learning a statement but my bottle goes and I read it instead. I am grateful for their intelligent and gentle questions.

When we get home we eat scrambled eggs and fall onto our mattress from exhaustion. We knew today would be tough. There will be a whole year of this for me.

Found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves...

[What follows is an excerpt from a column by Richard Ingrams published in The Independent on this date in 2009:]

There is never enough evidence

We are not looking for anyone else. That is the traditional response of the police when faced with the acquittal of men they are convinced were guilty all along. They were at it again this week when three men accused of assisting the 7 July suicide bombers were found not guilty. Andy Hayman, former commissioner of Special Operations at Scotland Yard, wrote of "a sense of bitter disappointment" at the acquittal of the men. And this he said was probably "the last throw of the dice". The police had done a very thorough investigation but the evidence was "not convincing enough".

The implication is clear. The men were almost certainly guilty. The police just didn't have the evidence to prove it. At no point was Hayman prepared to admit that they might just have been innocent. As it happened, the acquittal of the three men coincided with the reopening of an appeal case in a terrorist attack far more serious even than that of 7 July – the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 270 people.

The Libyan convicted of the bombing, Mr Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, began an appeal in Scotland against his conviction in 2001. Megrahi did not have the benefit of a jury trial but was found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves that he had put a bomb in a suitcase in Malta which went unaccompanied to Frankfurt where it was loaded on to another plane to Heathrow before being transferred on to Pan Am Flight 103 to the US and exploding over Scotland.

Should Megrahi's appeal succeed, it will be interesting to see if the Scottish police say that they are not looking for anyone else.

No positive identification of Megrahi

[What follows is a report published in The Herald on this date in 2009:]

Appeal judges were told today there "no positive identification" of a Libyan intelligence officer by a crucial witness at the Lockerbie bombing trial.

A senior counsel said there were "striking discrepancies" in the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper over the height and age of a man who had bought clothing from him with that of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.

The clothes were found to have been in a suitcase which housed the bomb that blew Pan Am Flight 103 out of the skies over the Dumfriesshire town in December 1988 killing 270 people.

Margaret Scott QC told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that the testimony of shopkeeper Tony Gauci was at best "a looks like resemblance" between the man who made the purchases and Megrahi.

She said: "When one looks at the identification evidence it is incapable of sustaining a finding that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing."

The finding was one of four critical inferences made by judges at Megrahi's original at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in convicting him of murder in 2001.

Megrahi (57) whose health is "deteriorating" as he suffers from prostate cancer, is appealling against the conviction claiming he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice.

He was jailed for life following the guilty finding and ordered to serve at least 27 years for the mass murder.

Megrahi has previous unsuccessfully challenged his conviction, but his case has now been referred back to the appeal court by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which examines alleged miscarriages of justice.

His counsel, Miss Scott, said that in 1989 Mr Gauci had described the man who bought the clothes as aged about 50 and six feet in height. Megrahi was aged 36 at the time of the purchase and stood five feet eight inches tall.

"The initial description given by the witness at the outset is substantially different to the appellant both in terms of height and age," she said.

She said Mr Gauci had been shown several photospreads by police on different occasions as they sought his help.

Miss Scott said that at the first which featured a photo of Megrahi, supplied by the FBI, there were aspects of procedure clearly different to the others.

She said initially Mr Gauci said the men featured were younger than the purchaser.

The defence counsel said: "In a sense he rejected the photos on the basis they were too young, but quite unlike before the witness was told to look at the photos again carefully and to try to allow for any age difference."

Miss Scott argued it was "a clear message that the witness needs to try again and a message that there is something there to be found".

She said it was only following this that Mr Gauci picked out the photo of Megrahi as being similar to the man who bought the clothing.

"In my submission, that is highly irregular and liable to introduce the risk of significant error in what he subsequently does," she said.

Miss Scott said that an identity parade held at Camp Zeist in 1999 with Mr Gauci in attendance was also flawed.

She said no other Libyans were part of the line-up and four of the participants were in their 30s and one was five feet three inches tall. "Four people were quite unreasonably young and one was unreasonably short," she told the court.

Mr Gauci picked out Megrahi at the parade as a man "who look a little bit like exactly" the clothes buyer.

The defence counsel said: "It is quite clear there has been no positive identification of the appellant as the purchaser. At best the witness makes a form of resemblance identification."

The hearing before five judges continues.

Identify a foreign “bad guy” and then exaggerate his faults

[What follows is excerpted from a long article published yesterday on the Consortium News website, authored by its editor, Robert Parry:]

What Americans should have learned from Iraq was that just because the neocons and their liberal-interventionist friends identify a foreign “bad guy” – and then exaggerate his faults – doesn’t mean that his violent removal is the best idea. It might actually lead to something worse. There is wisdom in the doctor’s oath, “first, do no harm,” and there’s truth in the old warning that before you tear down a wall, you should ask why someone built it in the first place.

However, in the propaganda world of Official Washington, a different lesson was learned: that it is easy to create designated villains and no one of importance will dare challenge the wisdom of removing that villain through another “regime change.”

Instead of the neocons and their liberal helpers being held accountable and removed from the corridors of power, they entrenched themselves more deeply inside the US government, mainstream media and big-name think tanks. They also found new allies among the self-righteous “human rights” community espousing the theory of “responsibility to protect” or “R2P.” (...)

In 2011, the R2Pers, as the neocons’ junior partners, largely initiated the US-orchestrated “regime change” in Libya, which starred Muammar Gaddafi in a returning role as “the world’s most dangerous man.” All the old terror charges against him were resurrected, including some like the Pam Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 that he very likely didn’t do. But, again, no one wanted to quibble because that would make you a “Gaddafi apologist.”

So, to the gleeful delight of Secretary of State Clinton, Gaddafi was overthrown, captured, beaten, sodomized with a knife, and then murdered. Clinton made no effort to conceal her glee. “We came, we saw, he died,” she joked at the news of his murder (although it was not clear that she knew all the grisly details at the time).

But Gaddafi’s demise did not bring Nirvana to Libya. Indeed, Gaddafi’s warning about the need to attack Islamic terrorists operating in eastern Libya – his military offensive that led to the R2P demand that Obama intervene militarily to stop Gaddafi – proved to be prophetic.

Extremists grabbed control of much of Libya. They overran the US consulate in Benghazi, killing the U.S. ambassador and three other U.S. diplomatic personnel. A civil war has now spread anarchy and mayhem across Libya and nearby countries.

Libya also now has its own branch of the Islamic State, which videotaped its beheadings of Coptic Christians along a beach on the Mediterranean Sea, a sickening sign of what could be expected after a possible Syrian “regime change” next.

Encouraged by senior civil servants to apply for prisoner transfer

[What follows is a report published in the edition of The Times for 30 April 2009:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing must decide whether to apply to serve the rest of his sentence at home in Libya, surrounded by his family, or remaining in a Scottish jail and attempt to clear his name.

The choice comes after Britain ratified a long-awaited prisoner transfer agreement with Libya yesterday. In order to pursue a move to a Libyan jail, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has continually protested his innocence and is dying of cancer, would have to abandon his appeal, which began on Tuesday at the Court of Criminal Appeal, in Edinburgh.

Last year it emerged that al-Megrahi has prostate cancer, which has now reportedly spread to his bones. On Tuesday, Margaret Scott, QC, counsel for the Libyan, told appeal judges that his health was deteriorating and that he would require frequent breaks from watching the proceedings via a live link to Greenock prison, where he is being held.

Al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence agent, is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years after being convicted in 2001 of the atrocity.

All 259 men, women and children on board Pan Am Flight 103 died, along with 11 residents of the Scottish Borders town who were killed by falling wreckage.

A spokesman for the [UK government] Ministry of Justice confirmed yesterday that the prisoner transfer agreement had now come into effect. “The instruments of ratification have been exchanged and the agreement is now in force,” he added.

Last night al-Megrahi's legal team refused to be drawn on whether or not he will apply for a transfer. Should he do so, the decision will ultimately be made by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary.

Although the transfer deal, negotiated between Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi during a meeting in 2007, caused a furious cross-border row when Alex Salmond, the First Minister, insisted that Scotland should have been consulted, the fate of prisoners in Scottish jails remains a devolved matter. A spokeswoman for Mr MacAskill said: “It would be for Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prison transfer in relation to any prisoners in Scotland.

“We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge or anticipate any decision. Scottish ministers judge each application on its own merits,” she added.

[A report published in The Herald on the same date contains the following:]

In a tacit acknowledgement that Megrahi is likely to be allowed to return home, the Crown Office wrote to all relatives of the victims two weeks ago explaining the transfer process.

Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement was ratified.

Megrahi, whose case was referred back for a fresh appeal in June 2007 because it "may be a miscarriage of justice", is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and relatives and campaigners are concerned that he will not survive the appeal, which is expected to last at least 12 months - partly because the court will be sitting for only four days a week on alternate months.

His request for interim bail was last year turned down by three appeal court judges.

"No reasonable jury could have drawn the critical inferences"

[What follows is the text of an article by Lucy Adams published in The Herald on this date in 2009:]

The son of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was in court yesterday alongside Libyan lawyers, international observers and the relatives of the victims, to hear the first day of his father’s new appeal.

Khalid al Megrahi, 22, the eldest son of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was present to hear his father's case to clear his name at the Court of Criminal appeal in Edinburgh.

Senior judges heard that the health of Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, has deteriorated and that he would be unable to sit through a full day of proceedings.

Megrahi, who was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year, will be watching the appeal at HMP Greenock through a live video link. However, Margaret Scott QC, his defence advocate, said he would need to take breaks and attend medical appointments during the appeal.

Megrahi, 57, is serving a life sentence with a minimum term of 27 years after being convicted in 2001 of bombing Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 and murdering 270 people.

He lost his appeal in 2002 but was referred back to the courts in June 2007 by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) whose three-and-a-half year investigation found that his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice on six different grounds.

Beginning legal submissions on Megrahi's behalf, Ms Scott QC told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case."

She said the trial court, on the basis of "wholly circumstantial evidence", concluded it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi was involved in the crime.

"In our submission, it was wrong to do so," she said. She told them that Megrahi would require to take breaks due to pain and is to see doctors later this week over a new course of treatment. (...)

In the gallery were a number of relatives of victims of the tragedy, including Dr Jim Swire, the Reverend John Mosey, and Hairat Ade-Balogun, an international observer for the UN.

Ms Scott told the judges the trial court's conclusion centred on four "critical inferences".

These were that Megrahi bought the clothing which was in the suitcase containing the bomb, that the purchase happened on December 7 1988, that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought, and that the suitcase containing the bomb was "ingested" at Luqa airport in Malta.

But Ms Scott told the court these were all areas of dispute.

"No reasonable jury, properly directed, could have drawn the critical inferences which were necessary to return that verdict of guilty," she said.

She also suggested other conclusions could have been drawn from the accepted evidence.

Megrahi's request for interim bail was last year turned down by three appeal court judges and there is concern that he may not survive the lengthy appeal process.

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK, which was signed by Westminster last year and is due to be ratified shortly, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. [RB: The PTA was ratified that very day, 29 April 2009.] Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.

Libyan officials say they have been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified.

[A report in The Scotsman concentrates on the difference in attitude towards Megrahi and his appeal between US and UK relatives of Lockerbie victims. The most informative account of the first day of the appeal, and of the background to it, is that of Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer (whose new blog PT35B should be followed by anyone interested in the Lockerbie case) which can be found here.]

Critical inferences not sufficiently supported by evidence

[The appeal permitted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission began at the High Court of Justiciary on this date in 2009, twenty-two months after the SCCRC reported and five years and seven months after Abdelbaset Megrahi’s application to the SCCRC was submitted.

A report in The Herald of 28 April 2009 reads in part:]

A previously-unseen witness statement is expected to undermine the identification of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the long-awaited appeal which begins today will unveil. (...)

These will include the previously unseen statement of David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shop owner whose identification of Megrahi was crucial to the conviction.

Mr Wright allegedly gave a "remarkably" similar description of a sale made at Mr Gauci's shop in Malta to the one used to implicate Megrahi. He gave a statement to English officers in December 1989.

A source said: "The new witness provides an account which is startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase but adds considerable doubt both to the date of the purchase and the identification by Mr Gauci of Megrahi as the purchaser." (...)

The hearing before the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, is due to sit for four weeks at a time with a month's break in between.

The defence team will question why the original trial excluded the incrimination of a terrorist cell that was operating in Germany shortly before the tragedy and why an inconsistent witness paid financial reward, could have been credible.

They will raise concerns about the trial's exclusion of the defence case to incriminate Abu Talb, who was subsequently convicted in Sweden of terrorist offences, and other members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC), the terrorist cell that was operating in Germany before the Lockerbie bombing.

They will argue that his right to a fair trial has been breached and that the original case was not proven.

The appeal will also scrutinise the trial court's finding that the suitcase carrying the bomb was put on the plane at Luqa airport in Malta.

The case was referred back to the appeal court in June 2007, following a long investigation by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission which concluded it may have been a miscarriage of justice on six separate points.

However, Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, could be transferred home to Libya under an agreement being rushed through parliament by Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary. While he is keen to clear his name in court, there is concern that he may not survive the long appeal process.

[A report later the same day on the BBC News website reads in part:]

Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, who has prostate cancer, was not in court as his second appeal got under way.

However his QC, Maggie Scott, said he could follow proceedings via live video link to Greenock Prison.

She told the Court of Appeal that it remained Megrahi's view that he had suffered a "miscarriage of justice". (...)

Miss Scott said that because of his cancer Megrahi would need to take breaks due to the pain and was set to see doctors later this week for a new course of treatment.

She told the court: "The appellant's position is that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

"The trial court, on the basis of wholly circumstantial evidence, concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was involved in the commission of this crime.

"Our submission is it was wrong to do so".

She argued that the guilty verdict against Megrahi depended upon four "critical inferences" drawn at his trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.

Miss Scott said these included that Megrahi was the buyer of clothing remnants of which were found in the suitcase containing the bomb and that the purchase was made on 7 December, 1988.

She said it was also inferred that the purchaser knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought and that the suitcase containing the improvised explosive device was "ingested" at Luqa airport in Malta.

The defence counsel argued that they were not sufficiently supported by accepted evidence and relied on defective reasoning.

She said: "In this wholly circumstantial case the critical inferences are not the only reasonable inferences that could have been drawn from the accepted evidence."

She said they were insufficient in law to support the guilty verdict returned against Megrahi.

The first part of his hearing is expected to last four weeks with further stages in the process taking it into next year.

Pan Am 103: Why Did They Die?

[On this date in 1992 Time magazine published a long article by Roy Rowan headlined Pan Am 103: Why Did They Die? The full text can be read here. What follows is a brief excerpt:]

Almost immediately after the Pan Am bombing, which killed the 259 people aboard the plane and 11 more on the ground, the prime suspect was Ahmed Jibril, the roly-poly boss of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC). Two months earlier, West German police had arrested 16 members of his terrorist organization. Seized during the raids was a plastic bomb concealed in a Toshiba cassette player, similar to the one that blew up Flight 103. There was other evidence pointing to Jibril. His patron was Syria. His banker for the attack on the Pan Am plane appeared to be Iran. US intelligence agents even traced a wire transfer of several million dollars to a bank account in Vienna belonging to the PFLP-GC. Iran's motive seemed obvious enough. The previous July, the USS Vincennes had mistakenly shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf, killing all 298 aboard.

Suddenly, last November [1991], the US Justice Department blamed the bombing on two Libyans, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah. The scenario prompted President Bush to remark, ''The Syrians took a bum rap on this.'' It also triggered an outcry from the victims' families, who claimed that pointing the finger at Libya was a political ploy designed to reward Syria for siding with the US in the gulf war and to help win the release of the hostages. Even Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's investigation of the bombing, told The New York Times it was ''outrageous'' to pin the whole thing on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

A four-month investigation by Time has disclosed evidence that raises new questions about the case. Among the discoveries:

-- According to an FBI field report from Germany, the suitcase originating in Malta that supposedly contained the bomb may not have been transferred to Pan Am Flight 103 in Frankfurt, as charged in the indictment of the two Libyans. Instead, the bomb-laden bag may have been substituted in Frankfurt for an innocent piece of luggage.

-- The rogue bag may have been placed on board the plane by Jibril's group with the help of Monzer al-Kassar, a Syrian drug dealer who was cooperating with the US's Drug Enforcement Administration in a drug sting operation. Al- Kassar thus may have been playing both sides of the fence.

-- Jibril and his group may have targeted that flight because on board was an intelligence team led by Charles McKee, whose job was to find and rescue the hostages.

New Lockerbie prosecutor

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

Lord advocate will play no part in any further investigation into the bombing, writes Mark Macaskill

Scotland’s lord advocate has signalled for the first time that he will play no role in prosecutions linked to the Lockerbie bombing if a fresh police investigation unearths evidence of criminality by Crown Office staff.

Allegations being examined by Police Scotland include claims that some Crown Office staff concealed or tampered with evidence to ensure Libya took the blame for the 1988 atrocity.

Last week, members of the Scottish parliament’s justice committee declared support for the appointment of an independent prosecutor to ensure public confidence in further investigations and agreed to seek assurances from the lord advocate that he would play no part in fresh prosecutions. Concerns were also raised that Frank Mulholland, the lord advocate, cannot be objective and impartial because he has expressed confidence in the guilt of Abdelbaset Ali al- Megrahi, who was convicted of the bombing, and the integrity of the case against him.

“Frankly, some of the lord advocate’s comments during hearings on the petition were not helpful,” said Christine Grahame, the committee’s convener. “That may in some ways colour one’s feeling of being content that there is — I hesitate to say — an independence of spirit.”

John Finnie, an independent MSP, added: “When the police come to submit their report, they are, as things stand, submitting it to someone who has already prejudged the situation with intemperate remarks.” Finnie said it would be “interesting to hear the lord advocate’s views” on the merits of an independent prosecutor.

On Friday, the Crown Office said moves had already been made internally to appoint an independent prosecutor. “The lord advocate already anticipated this as an issue some time ago and decided it would be improper for him to personally deal with the matter. Arrangements have already been put in place for an independent crown counsel, who has not been involved in the Lockerbie case, to deal with this matter if and when the need arises.”

Senior detectives have been investigating claims by the Justice for Megrahi group — which believes Megrahi, who died in 2012, was framed for bringing down Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people — that police officers, crown officials and expert witnesses concealed or tampered with evidence.

The group has previously questioned the “objectivity and independence” of Mulholland and former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill. In 2013, the group asked the International Association of Prosecutors to look at how they dealt with allegations against the Crown Office and police which handled the Lockerbie case.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is looking at the conviction of Megrahi and has asked the High Court for guidance on whether victims’ families can make an appeal on the Libyan’s behalf. It seeks to determine whether individuals such as Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, can be classed as having a “legitimate interest” in pursuing the appeal in the event it refers the case to the High Court for a third appeal.

[RB: It appears that what the Lord Advocate is proposing is that an advocate-depute -- ie a Crown Office prosecutor -- who has had no previous dealings with the Lockerbie case should assume responsibility for assessing the Police Scotland report. This is simply not good enough. Any special prosecutor appointed must be entirely independent of the Crown Office. It is the Crown Office as an institution that has prejudged Justice for Megrahi’s criminality allegations.]

"I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system"

[What follows is an item posted on this blog on this date in 2009:]

New witness casts doubt on Lockerbie bomb conviction

[The following are excerpts from an article under this headline in today's edition of The Independent on Sunday. The full article can be read here.]

A new witness is expected this week to undermine thoroughly the case against the only person to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. New testimony will call into question evidence linking the Libyan Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi to the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, his lawyers claim. (...)

[Note by RB: In the first session of the appeal, which starts on Tuesday [28 April 2009] and runs until 22 May, there will be no new witnesses, just legal argument. Any new witnesses, if the Appeal Court allows them to be heard -- and the rules about fresh evidence in appeals are very restrictive -- will only feature in later sessions.]

Appeal hearings are due to begin on Tuesday, and Megrahi's lawyers insisted this weekend they will go ahead as planned, despite speculation that he may be returned to Libya under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement, due to be ratified tomorrow.

"We are turning up next week," said Tony Kelly, his solicitor. "We are seeking that the court upholds his appeal, admit that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and grant him his liberty. Whatever remedies come after that is for after the appeal."

Appeal documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal that testimony from a new witness is expected to undermine the evidence of a key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper. His testimony was vital in connecting Megrahi to the bombing at the trial in 2001.

Mr Gauci identified Megrahi as the person who bought the tweed suit, baby sleepsuit and umbrella found among the remnants of the suitcase that contained the bomb on board.

The new witness, not named in the documents, will provide an account the defence claims is "startling in its consistency with Mr Gauci's account of the purchase, but adds considerable doubt to the date the key items were purchased and identification of Megrahi as the purchaser".

All of this may be academic, as 56-year-old Megrahi, who was diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer in October 2008, has been reported as having less than a year to live and the appeal could take two years.

Increasingly, however, it seems likely that the Lockerbie suspect will spend his last days in Libya. This month, officials wrote to the families of victims of the bombing explaining the prisoner transfer programme, interpreted as a tacit agreement that Megrahi may be returned to Libya. Under the terms of the deal, if Megrahi participates in the transfer scheme, he will forfeit his right to appeal.

"If he goes back to Libya, it will be a bitter pill to swallow, as an appeal would reveal the fallacies in the prosecution case," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on Flight 103. Dr Swire is a member of UK Families Flight 103, which wants a public inquiry into the crash. "I've lost faith in the Scottish criminal justice system, but if the appeal is heard, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive."