Abu Talb in witness box at Lockerbie trial

[On this date in 2000 the BBC News website carried a report headlined Palestinian denies Lockerbie bomb link. It reads as follows:]

A convicted Palestinian terrorist has told the Lockerbie trial that he was at home looking after his children on the night of the bombing.

Mohammed Abu Talb is one of the men alleged by the defence to have carried out the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town in December 1988.

But, giving evidence after a series of adjournments at the trial in the Netherlands, he denied any involvement.

Talb is in prison in Sweden for bomb outrages against Jewish and American targets.

His evidence has been described as a "spoiler" by the prosecution to destroy claims made by the defence teams.

In a special defence, counsel for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah allege that the Syrian-backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) and the lesser-known Palestinian Popular Struggle Front (PPSF) were responsible for the bomb attack.

Talb is mentioned in this special defence as having links with both groups.

Prosecutors allege the two Libyans planted a bomb in a suitcase at Malta's Luqa airport and routed it onto a plane bound for Frankfurt which was eventually transferred to the ill-fated flight to New York.

Talb's evidence had first been expected in August, but that was prevented by a series of objections and adjournments.

These followed the handing over of a dossier of new evidence.

Defence lawyers said they needed more time to carry out further inquiries, but Lord Sutherland dismissed their objections to Talb being called while investigations into new evidence were carried out.

During his 80 minutes in the witness box, Talb told the court that on the night of the Pan Am bombing he was at home caring for his two young children.

He said his wife was at a hospital with her sister-in-law who was giving birth.

The defence objected to Talb's testimony, calling him a "spoiler witness".

They said his sole purpose was to blunt the force of the defence's cross-examination, which would have more force once additional information was obtained.

Lawyer William Taylor told the court the defence would be recalling Talb for cross-examination "at such time as we procure the information we need."

Talb, whose testimony is due to resume on Tuesday, also told the court that he had been a member of the PPSF since 1976.

[A report in The Guardian can be read here.]

Germans link Heathrow with Lockerbie bomb

[This is the headline over an article by David Pallister that was published in The Guardian on this date in 1989. It is no longer to be found on the newspaper’s website, but is reproduced on Caustic Logic’s website The Lockerbie Divide:]

West German forensic experts have discovered evidence which suggests that the bomb which brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie last December could have been loaded at Heathrow.

The evidence comes from an examination of three other bombs made by the Palestinian group believed to be responsible for the attack. It casts serious doubt on the theory that the bomb was placed on an earlier connecting flight.

All three devices were identically constructed, with electronic timers set to detonate the Semtex explosive within 43 to 46 minutes of being activated by a barometric pressure trigger at about 3,000 feet. [RB: These timings are not wholly accurate.] The West German police believe they were destined for El Al planes or flights to Tel Aviv.

If the Lockerbie bomb was the same, it would have had to have been placed on board the jumbo at Heathrow, rather than at Frankfurt, Malta or Cyprus - the three possibilities so far publicly canvassed.

The bombs have been connected with the terrorist cell run in West Germany by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. The first was found in October 1988 in a radio cassette player in a car driven by Hafez Dalkamoni, who has been identified as a senior member of the PFLP-GC. He is awaiting trial in Frankfurt for a bomb attack on a railway in Lower Saxony in August 1987.

The discovery of the cassette bomb led to warnings from the West Germans to airlines and other western governments in November.

In April this year West German police found three more devices in the basement of a house owned by one of Dalkamoni's relatives in the town of Neuss. One exploded at the Wiesbaden headquarters of the BKA, the federal criminal investigation agency, killing a bomb disposal expert.

The three unexploded devices were all made by the same man. The BKA thinks he was the man arrested with Dalkamoni, Marwan Khreesat, who was mysteriously released without charge two weeks later, along with 12 other Palestinians arrested in October. Khreesat, it has been alleged, was probably an agent working for either Jordanian or West German intelligence, or both.

The forensic experts, working for the BKA, believe the devices were designed to withstand examination by El Al's pressure chambers which are used to screen baggage.

Dr Jim Swire, the spokesman for the UK Families-Flight 103 group, believes the findings could point to the Lockerbie bomb, which was also in a cassette player, being loaded at Heathrow.

The plane took off at 6.25pm and disappeared off the radar screens between 53 and 54 minutes later [RB: Actually 38 minutes later, at 7:03]. It takes between seven and 10 minutes to climb to 3,000 feet, which fits in precisely with the timing system on the other bombs.

Robin Cook on prospects for Lockerbie trial

[What follows is the text of a report published on this date in 1998 in The Sunday Times, as reproduced on Safia Aoude’s The Pan Am 103 Crash Website:]

The foreign secretary, Robin Cook, believes it is increasingly likely that the two Libyans suspected of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing will be turned over to a court in the Hague by Christmas, ending a 10-year wait to bring them to justice.

"I'm encouraged that the Libyans are seriously engaged on our proposal," Cook said in an interview last week. "There has been no grandstanding or wasting of time."

Cook said indications from Libya suggested that Muammar Gadaffi wanted to break the deadlock over the fate of the two men, Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah. They are accused of placing a suitcase bomb aboard the Pan Am 103 jet that blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on December 21 1988, killing all 259 people aboard and 11 on the ground.

The foreign secretary said he was particularly encouraged by the recent appointment of a senior Libyan team of lawyers, headed by Kamel al-Maghour, a former foreign minister, to represent the pair.

British sources said they had been told by the United Nations that the Libyans were "largely happy" with assurances given by the British government three weeks ago concerning the planned conduct of legal proceedings.

This followed an Anglo-American proposal made in August under which the two would be tried in the Hague under Scottish law before a panel of Scottish judges and not in London or Washington.

Among the assurances, Britain has guaranteed Libya that the offer of a trial in the Netherlands is not merely a ruse to get hold of the men and send them to America or Britain. The families of the accused have been promised access to them and the defence team allowed to call witnesses from Britain.

The government has also tried to assuage Gadaffi's fears that senior Libyan officials called to testify might be arrested. "Anyone who comes and gives evidence ... is immune from arrest for offences in the past," Cook said. He also insisted the West would honour its pledge to end sanctions imposed on Libya immediately the suspects were handed over. [RB: It is important to note that what was being accorded to witnesses was immunity from arrest while at Zeist. Witnesses receive immunity from prosecution only if called by the Crown as accomplices of those on trial to give evidence against them. Ordinary prosecution witnesses receive no immunity from prosecution, but are entitled to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate them.]

First indications of how quickly the men may be handed over could emerge after the Libyan legal team meets Hans Correll, the Swedish diplomat who is the United Nations' top legal officer, in New York tomorrow.

The only remaining key sticking point is the Libyan demand that al-Megrahi and Fhimah should be imprisoned in the Netherlands rather than Britain if convicted. Cook says this remains non-negotiable. "If convicted of offences under Scottish jurisdiction, they will serve time in a Scottish prison," he said. "There are two cells in Barlinnie [prison] prepared." Cook has made bringing the Libyans to justice a priority since taking office in May last year.

On his desk in the Foreign Office is a constant reminder of the tragedy: a glass globe Cook calls the "Lockerbie snow ball", which was sent by the relative of an American victim. When it is turned upside down, snows falls on miniature Lockerbie memorials.

Objections to neutral venue trial countered in Commons

On this date in 1997, the adjournment debate in the House of Commons was on the topic of Lockerbie and, principally, on arguments that I had supplied to Tam Dalyell MP refuting the various objections that had been raised to a trial of the two Libyan suspects in a neutral country under Scottish law and (modified) Scottish procedure. The Official Report (Hansard) of the fascinating debate, in which only Mr Dalyell and Tony Lloyd (Minister of State at the Foreign Office) participated, can be read here.

Urgent questions posed to SCCRC by John Ashton

[What follows is the text of an email sent this morning to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission by John Ashton. It is reproduced here with Mr Ashton’s approval:]

I am the biographer of Mr Megrahi and from 2006 until his return to Libya in 2009 worked as a researcher with his legal team.

I have a number of urgent questions, which are listed below, about the statement issued by SCCRC yesterday, in particular, the following passages:

The Commission received the current application from Messrs Aamer Anwar & Co., solicitors, in June 2014. At the time it was clear that the application was made on behalf of the “Justice for Megrahi” group, in the form of Dr Jim Swire, the Rev'd John Mosey and a number of other family members of the victims of the bombing. The application also appeared to be supported by the members of the family of the late Mr Megrahi…

...The Commission also had to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s previous appeal. To enable it to do so it was imperative that the Commission be provided with the defence appeal papers. After a period of 14 months, and despite various requests having been made of the Megrahi family and of the late Mr Megrahi’s previous solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, these have not been forthcoming...

[Quote by SCCRC Jean Couper:]

...“It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review…”

...The Commission has written to the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors and to his family requesting access to the defence papers in order to allow it to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal. No papers were forthcoming despite repeated requests.

Points to note

1. The application, which the SCCRC yesterday rejected, was not made of behalf of the Justice for Megrahi group but on behalf of a number of the UK Lockerbie victims’ relatives and members of Mr Megrahi’s family.

2. The application stated, in schedule 3:

The circumstances in which Abdelbaset al-Megrahi came to abandon his second appeal are set out in Chapter 14 (pages 346 to 365) and Appendix 4 (pages 420 to 425) of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury — The Lockerbie Evidence (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2012, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 015 9) and (much more briefly) on page 119 of John Ashton’s Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2013, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 167 5) to which the Commission is respectfully referred.

Having been diagnosed as suffering from terminal prostate cancer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was desperate to achieve his repatriation to Libya so that he could die surrounded by his family. In these circumstances he applied for compassionate release on 24 July 2009. The Libyan Government had already submitted an application for prisoner transfer on 5 May 2009. Abandonment of Megrahi’s appeal was not a requirement for compassionate release, but it was a requirement for prisoner transfer; and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice intimated that, although prisoner transfer had been applied for more than two months before application was made for compassionate release, both applications would be dealt with by him simultaneously (see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/07/megrahi-deadline-will-be-missed.html). Accordingly, if both routes to repatriation were to remain open to him, Megrahi had to abandon his appeal.

In a press release issued through his solicitor, Tony Kelly, a short time after his return to Libya, Megrahi stated: “I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place. As a result of the abandonment of my appeal I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process. I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name. I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence.” (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-release-regarding-publication-of.html). Until the end of his life, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi continued to protest his innocence of the crime of which he had been convicted: see eghttp://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2011/12/these-are-my-last-words-i-am-innocent.html.

3. The application was accompanied by an affidavit by me, which provided a detailed account of why, according to Mr Megrahi, he abandoned his previous appeal. It named three Libyan witnesses who could verify this account.

4. Mr Megrahi gave me access to all his legal appeal papers, which I still have.

5. In response to the SCCRC’s statement, Taylor & Kelly solicitors yesterday issued the following statement:

It is with some surprise that we learn today that the Commission have come to the view that papers have not been forthcoming from us as Mr Megrahi’s appeal representatives. As soon as a request was made from the commission we asked to be advised of the basis of the request – the power of the commission to ask for access to material. Despite making clear that we were anxious to assist, we have not as yet been told of the Commission’s authority to have access to amongst other things private communications. As solicitors we cannot deliver up papers in our possession simply upon request, even to a body such as the Commission.

No indication was given to us until today that the Commission were interested in the part of our actings relating to Mr Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned. The Commission have very wide powers indeed. They could have made application to the Court for access to materials. In any such application, they would clearly have been required to state the basis of the request, and the basis for any court to order us as solicitors to have to part with confidential papers. We prefaced that in communications with them and asked them to provide authority for any application. We remain in the dark on this important point.

As solicitors we are bound by professional obligations which are the subject of regulation by the Law Society of Scotland. In the event that we have in some way not met our professional obligations the Law Society could have been consulted.

As it was, at the conclusion of our actings in this case we sought and obtained our own legal advice about the custody of the papers.

No further enquiry was made of our solicitors individually or any others who formed part of the legal team. The Commission in its previous consideration of Mr Megrahi’s case interviewed each member of Mr Megrahi’s team about decisions made in the course of the trial. If focus had centred on the abandonment of the appeal then that could have been pursued by seeking to interview those involved in that aspect of the case.

Questions

1. Why did the commission state that the application had been brought on behalf of the Justice for Megrahi group, when it was in fact brought on behalf on some of the Lockerbie victims’ relatives and members of Mr Megrahi’s family?

2. Why did the commission not approach me to request access to the paperwork that I hold?

3. Why did the commission not interview me about the reasons that Mr Megrahi gave for abandoning his appeal?

4. Why did the commission not attempt to speak to the Libyan witnesses named in my affidavit?

5. Why did the commission not advise Taylor & Kelly solicitors of the legal basis of its request for documentation?

6. Why did the commission not seek to interview solicitor Tony Kelly about Mr Megrahi’s abandonment of his appeal?

I look forward to your early response.

“The fact is, they didn’t want to do this”

[Today’s edition of The Times features a report by Mike Wade headlined Lockerbie case dropped after lack of support. It reads as follows:]

Examining the case of the Lockerbie bomber is no longer in the interests of justice, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has decided.

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan who died three years ago protesting his innocence, remains the only man convicted of the atrocity, which brought down a Pan Am jet in December 1988, killing 270 people.

The commission had been considering a request for a review of his case brought last July by lawyers for al-Megrahi’s family, but said yesterday it had not been able to secure papers from his former defence team, nor important materials from his closest relatives.

Jean Couper, the chairman of the commission, said: “It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review.”

Mrs Couper added: “It remains open for the matter to be considered again by the commission, but it is unlikely that any future application will be accepted for review unless it is accompanied with the appropriate defence papers.”

Campaigners hoping to clear al-Megrahi of the bombing by a posthumous appeal said that they were disappointed but not surprised by the decision, and were determined to continue their fight.

“This is not over as far as the family is concerned,” said Aamer Anwar, the solicitor for the family. “The door has not been closed by the commission. The case is dependent on if and when we can travel out to Libya. Hopefully, that will be in the near future.”

The commission’s decision turned on the apparent failure of the al-Megrahi family to pursue the case. His supporters say relatives are scared to speak up for him, because he worked for the despised Gaddafi regime, and they still live in fear of reprisals.

John Ashton, who cowrote a book about Lockerbie with al-Megrahi, accused the commission of “exploiting a legal loophole” to drop the case. “The fact is, they didn’t want to do this. It would have been very expensive and controversial,” he added.

At the end of al-Megrahi’s trial in 2001, a number of prominent observers publicly questioned his conviction, including Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing. Doubts continue to surround the case.

In July 2007, the commission granted al-Megrahi leave to appeal, identifying six grounds for believing that a “miscarriage of justice may have occurred”.

Two years later, he dropped his appeal, claiming in Mr Ashton’s book that he did so in exchange for his early release. He said that Kenny MacAskill, who was the Scottish justice secretary, told a Libyan government official that “it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal”.

Last month, Scottish and American investigators were invited to travel to Libya by the National Salvation government to question two further suspects, Mohammed Abouajela Masud and Abdullah al-Senussi.

Al-Megrahi’s supporters believe the identification of the men could help to clear his name.

Mr Ashton said: “If these new suspects are brought to trial, hopefully, it will all come back to court. That would require rerunning the case against al-Megrahi. If Libya stabilises and the family is prepared to put their heads above the parapet, that case can and should be heard.”

Lawyers representing Megrahi at earlier appeal criticise SCCRC

[One of the reasons given by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for refusing the Megrahi application was the failure by his former solicitors, Taylor & Kelly, to supply requested documentation relating the appeal which was abandoned when Megrahi sought repatriation on being diagnosed with terminal cancer. Taylor & Kelly have responded in a press release which reads as follows:]

It is with some surprise that we learn today that the Commission have come to the view that papers have not been forthcoming from us as Mr Megrahi’s appeal representatives. As soon as a request was made from the commission we asked to be advised of the basis of the request – the power of the commission to ask for access to material. Despite making clear that we were anxious to assist, we have not as yet been told of the Commission’s authority to have access to amongst other things private communications. As solicitors we cannot deliver up papers in our possession simply upon request, even to a body such as the Commission.

No indication was given to us until today that the Commission were interested in the part of our actings relating to Mr Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned.

The Commission have very wide powers indeed. They could have made application to the Court for access to materials. In any such application, they would clearly have been required to state the basis of the request, and the basis for any court to order us as solicitors to have to part with confidential papers. We prefaced that in communications with them and asked them to provide authority for any application. We remain in the dark on this important point.

As solicitors we are bound by professional obligations which are the subject of regulation by the Law Society of Scotland. In the event that we have in some way not met our professional obligations the Law Society could have been consulted.

As it was, at the conclusion of our actings in this case we sought and obtained our own legal advice about the custody of the papers.

No further enquiry was made of our solicitors individually or any others who formed part of the legal team. The Commission in its previous consideration of Mr Megrahi’s case interviewed each member of Mr Megrahi’s team about decisions made in the course of the trial. If focus had centred on the abandonment of the appeal then that could have been pursued by seeking to interview those involved in that aspect of the case.

Solicitors when acting in any case are privy to all sorts of private and sensitive information from their clients, other professionals, the court and so on. It would be odd indeed if those confidences were to be easily breached simply upon request.

The basis of our searching for a proper basis of the Commission’s request was not nit picking, but, rather to ensure that our clients remain confident that the privileged communication between solicitor and client will not be easily violated.

It is a pity that the Commission have decided upon this application on such a basis. We are sorry that the Commission has not given further thought to formulating a basis for their request and sharing with us what was being sought.

Why did SCCRC fail to contact John Ashton for Megrahi documentation?

[What follows is the text of an item posted last night by John Ashton on his website Megrahi: You are my Jury:]

The SCCRC say they couldn’t get access to Megrahi’s appeal papers – so why didn’t they ask me for them?

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has today announced that it has rejected the application made by various UK Lockerbie victims’ relatives and members of the Megrahi family for a review of Abdelbaset’s conviction on the grounds that “it is not in the interests of justice”.

The accompanying statement contains the following:

The Commission also had to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s previous appeal. To enable it to do so it was imperative that the Commission be provided with the defence appeal papers. After a period of 14 months, and despite various requests having been made of the Megrahi family and of the late Mr Megrahi’s previous solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, these have not been forthcoming…

[Quote by SCCRC Chairman Jean Couper:]

It is extremely frustrating that the relevant papers, which the Commission believes are currently with the late Mr Megrahi’s solicitors, Messrs Taylor and Kelly, and with the Megrahi family, have not been forthcoming despite repeated requests from the Commission. Therefore, and with some regret, we have decided to end the current review…

…The Commission has written to the late Mr Megrahi`s solicitors and to his family requesting access to the defence papers in order to allow it to consider the circumstances surrounding the abandonment of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal. No papers were forthcoming despite repeated requests.

Abdelbaset gave me access to all of the defence appeal papers, and I still have them, yet no one from the SCCRC approached me for them. Had they done so, I would have happily handed them over. I also reported on Abdelbaset’s reason for abandoning his appeal in Megrahi: You are my Jury.

The application to the SCCRC stated, in schedule 3, the following:

The circumstances in which Abdelbaset al-Megrahi came to abandon his second appeal are set out in Chapter 14 (pages 346 to 365) and Appendix 4 (pages 420 to 425) of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury — The Lockerbie Evidence (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2012, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 015 9) and (much more briefly) on page 119 of John Ashton’s Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, Edinburgh, 2013, ISBN-13 978 1 78027 167 5) to which the Commission is respectfully referred.

Having been diagnosed as suffering from terminal prostate cancer, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was desperate to achieve his repatriation to Libya so that he could die surrounded by his family. In these circumstances he applied for compassionate release on 24 July 2009. The Libyan Government had already submitted an application for prisoner transfer on 5 May 2009. Abandonment of Megrahi’s appeal was not a requirement for compassionate release, but it was a requirement for prisoner transfer; and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice intimated that, although prisoner transfer had been applied for more than two months before application was made for compassionate release, both applications would be dealt with by him simultaneously (see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/07/megrahi-deadline-will-be-missed.html). Accordingly, if both routes to repatriation were to remain open to him, Megrahi had to abandon his appeal.

In a press release issued through his solicitor, Tony Kelly, a short time after his return to Libya, Megrahi stated: “I have returned to Tripoli with my unjust conviction still in place. As a result of the abandonment of my appeal I have been deprived of the opportunity to clear my name through the formal appeal process. I have vowed to continue my attempts to clear my name. I will do everything in my power to persuade the public, and in particular the Scottish public, of my innocence.” (see http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/09/press-release-regarding-publication-of.html). Until the end of his life, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi continued to protest his innocence of the crime of which he had been convicted: see eg http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2011/12/these-are-my-last-words-i-am-innocent.html.

In view of this, the SCCRC cannot have been unaware of my involvement in the case, so why did they not contact me?

Police cannot substantiate Malta-Frankfurt unaccompanied baggage

[What follows is the text of a report headlined Warning of media risk to Lockerbie disaster prosecution that was published in The Herald on this date in 1989:]

The protection of any possible prosecution over the bombing of the PanAm flight that came down in Scotland last December was paramount, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the Lord Advocate said yesterday when he called for restraint in reporting the Lockerbie criminal investigation.

He disclosed in a statement that reports about unaccompanied luggage having gone from Malta to Frankfurt “let alone unaccompanied baggage with a bomb in it” could not be substantiated by the Scottish police officer leading the inquiry.

Lord Fraser said in Edinburgh that he was deeply concerned and disturbed that reporting could reach a point which seriously jeopardised not only the international investigation but also any future court proceedings.

“It must be kept in mind that this is the largest mass murder investigation in recent times in Britain and it is incumbent upon us all to exercise restraint in the interests of justice,” he said.

“We all owe it to the 270 victims who perished as a result of the bombing of PanAm 103 and, just as importantly, the bereaved relatives, that the perpetrators are brought to justice,” he said.

“It is most important that this is not lost sight of, as speculative reporting causes dismay and distress to them.”

Lord Fraser's call follows intense reporting of the matter in recent days on both sides of the Atlantic.

He said that he had frequently made it clear that his prime concern, indeed his only concern, was the integrity of the investigation, which he said was being very methodically and skilfully conducted by the Lockerbie team under the direction of the chief constable.

“The purpose of the investigation is not simply to establish that there was a web of opportunity for those determined to commit this appalling terrorist outrage and assault on the sovereignty of the United States, but to identify those who did it and how they did so to a standard of proof to satisfy a criminal court,” he said.

“As Lord Advocate, I have to say our essential purpose is put at risk if premature disclosure shuts off lines of enquiry or puts potential witnesses under threat,” he stated.

Lord Fraser said that he had also noted considerable “ill-informed and inaccurate speculation” in relation to the Federal German Police and other international agencies.

“I want to make it quite clear that the degree of international co-operation in this case has been unprecedented and we would certainly not have reached the stage we are at had this not been the case,” he said.

“The Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway, Mr George Esson, has told me that he cannot substantiate reports about unaccompanied luggage having gone from Malta to Frankfurt let alone unaccompanied baggage with a bomb in it,” Lord Fraser said.

[RB: The Frankfurt Airport computer printout saved by Bogomira Erac that led the Zeist court to conclude (wrongly, it seems) that there had been an item of unaccompanied baggage from Malta was disclosed to the Scottish police by the German Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) in August 1989: see John Ashton, Megrahi: You are my Jury, pages 106-109. It is therefore a little difficult to understand why Peter Fraser should have chosen to go public in November 1989 with this statement.]