Lockerbie files show Scots police doubted key witness

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

Scottish detectives distanced themselves from a key Lockerbie witness, it has emerged, casting further doubt on the conviction of the only person ever found guilty over the attack.

Abdul Majid Giaka, a Libyan agent turned CIA informant, gave evidence that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi collected a brown Samsonite suitcase from a Maltese airport the day before the 1988 bombing.

However, newly declassified files show that Scottish officers investigating the case admitted that his involvement had put them in a “delicate position”.

“The ‘birth’ of that witness was totally the making of the Americans,” they said in a document from 1991 that was marked secret.

It emerged this week that American prosecutors were seeking the extradition of the Libyan operative Abu Agila Mohammad Masud, accusing him of making the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103, killing 270 people. He worked under Colonel Gaddafi and is serving a ten-year sentence for other crimes in a Tripoli prison.

The FBI is also believed to be interested in Abdullah Senussi, Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and security chief, who is suspected of overseeing the bombing and is in prison with Masud.

Lawyers carrying out a posthumous appeal on behalf of al-Megrahi, who died in 2012, say that the case against him was first made by Mr Giaka, whom they describe as “discredited”. They say that any charges levelled against Masud would fall apart if al-Megrahi’s conviction was overturned.

A report by the joint intelligence group of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary has been declassified and placed in the National Archives at Kew. The dossier, seen by The Times, dates to October 1991, when reports of Mr Giaka’s emergence as an American asset began to circulate.

The document, written by Detective Chief Superintendent Stuart Henderson, the senior investigating officer, says: “The development of the ‘new witness’ has placed us in a delicate position. The ‘birth’ of that witness was totally the making of the Americans. The Americans must be ‘as one’ with us in anything we propose to expose to the Maltese.”

The document also mentions Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper whose evidence played a decisive role in al-Megrahi’s conviction at a Scottish court convened in the Netherlands in 2000. It states: “The Americans are keen to approach the witness Tony Gauci and ‘ascertain’ if he feels insecure or otherwise. Their intention is to take Gauci to America.” (...)

However, in 2005 Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, the former lord advocate who drew up the indictment against al-Megrahi, expressed doubts over Gauci’s testimony, describing him as “not quite the full shilling”. Last month appeal judges were told that Mr Gauci had asked for money in return for giving evidence.

The court was also told that Mr Gauci had been shown a photograph of al-Megrahi before he picked him out in an identity parade.

Aamer Anwar, the lawyer representing the al-Megrahi family, said: “These documents shine a light on dark and desperate actions taken by the US intelligence services over Lockerbie.

“We can only surmise that the ‘new witness’ who had been ‘birthed’ by the Americans was Abdul Majid Giaka.

“Megrahi’s family understands he was first accused of being involved in a conspiracy by Giaka. There has always been a suggestion that Giaka may have fabricated matters to make himself more valuable to the Americans. If the conviction of the late Megrahi was overturned then the case against Abu Agila Masud is likely to fall apart.”

John Holt, a former CIA agent who worked closely with Mr Giaka, claimed that the informant was a fantasist and an opportunist.

“I handled Giaka in 1989 for a whole year during which he never mentioned Libyan involvement in the bombing,” he said. “He was a car mechanic who was placed by Libyan intelligence as Malta airport office manager with Libyan Arab Airlines and had very little information about anything to do with bombs or Lockerbie.

“He felt humiliated by Megrahi, who was an official with the Libyan intelligence service, so the CIA knew he had a grudge.”

Mr Holt claimed that Mr Giaka changed his story in 1991 after fearing that his cover had been blown.

This month Mr Holt said: “When he was told he was useless to our intelligence services he began making up stories. It was only when he needed desperately to flee Libya in 1991 that he started telling the CIA things relevant to the Pan Am bombing, like hearing Megrahi and another man talking about a plan to bomb an American airliner.” (...)

“Is this an American attempt to influence the judges?"

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Tom Peterkin in today's edition of The Press and Journal:]

The FBI agent who led the original Lockerbie investigation has revealed the atrocity’s latest suspect was on his “radar” 30 years ago but there was a struggle to prove the case against him.

Richard Marquise said it was strongly suspected Abu Agila Mohammad Masud was the “technician” responsible for the bomb that killed 270 people in the worst terrorist outrage committed on UK territory.

Mr Marquise was reacting to reports suggesting that US prosecutors will seek the extradition of Mr Masud and he will be charged in a matter of days, to stand trial in America.

As the man who led the US side of the inquiry into the bombing, Mr Marquise welcomed reports that Mr Masud could face justice, claiming any progress would be appreciated by the families who lost loved ones on Pan Am Flight 103.

“If there is going to be another trial, I’m sure the families will be… I’m not going to use the word thrilled…. because it doesn’t bring a loved one back. But I am sure they will be grateful,” Mr Marquise said. (...)

“He’s been on my radar for around 30 years,” Mr Marquise said. “He was someone we were very interested in, but we never quite found out who he was. The Libyans disavowed any knowledge of him. We knew he existed but he was never really identified.

“Back in 1991, we knew his name. We knew what he looked like and we knew what he allegedly was responsible for. He was the technician.”

The retired FBI agent added: “In my mind I always felt he was connected to it somehow But we didn’t have the clues to prove it.”

Kenny MacAskill, the former Justice Secretary who controversially released Megrahi on compassionate grounds, agreed.

“He was the one with the skills. He was on the original indictment, I’m led to believe. So he was always a wanted man,” Mr MacAskill said. “The idea that Megrahi did this on his own was absurd.”

Reports from the other side of the Atlantic suggest Mr Masud had been in custody in Libya on unrelated charges but his current whereabouts are unknown.

Since Mr Marquise’s official involvement in the investigation, there have been some developments. At the forefront of these have been the work of Ken Dornstein, a journalist whose brother David was on the London to New York flight.

In 2015 Mr Dornstein produced a investigative documentary, Lockerbie: My Brother’s Bomber, which linked Mr Masud to the bombing of Berlin’s La Belle nightclub in 1986.

Mr Dornstein interviewed a Libyan intelligence officer who said Mr Masud was involved in the bombing before the unification of Germany, which killed two US servicemen.

The same source alleged Mr Masud, by then in jail in Tripoli, was involved in the Lockerbie bombing and said he was still alive.

Mr Dornstein also claimed Mr Masud met Megrahi after the latter was freed from a Scottish jail in 2009 and given a hero’s welcome when he landed back in Libya. (...)

Mr MacAskill has already made it plain that he believes that people other than Megrahi should be held to account for the bombing.

“Question arise as to why, if they are going for Masud, aren’t they going for Senussi?” asked the former Justice Secretary. 

Mr MacAskill was referring to Abdullah Al Senussi, the late Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi’s brother-in-law and former spy chief who has long been associated with the crime. (...)

“I heard over recent years the view of the Libyans was they don’t like Senussi and they don’t like Masud, but giving them up to the Americans is a step too far,” Mr MacAskill said.

“I think this is probably the juncture for Britain and America to be a bit more open in information they do have and produce it, as opposed to hiding it.”

What can be read into the timing of Masud’s extradition?

That is an interesting question, according to Professor Robert Black, an the Edinburgh University legal academic who has been a keen student of the Lockerbie case.

Professor Black is regarded as the architect of the Scottish court that was set up in Camp Zeist, Netherlands, to try Megrahi and his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, who was found not guilty.

“I wonder…. why now?” asked Professor Black. “Masud’s name has featured in the Lockerbie case since the very beginning, when charges were brought against Megrahi and Fhimah in 1991.”

“I think the answer to that is William Barr, the US Attorney General, is wanting to go out with a bang.”

This week it was announced that Mr Barr, who has been one of Donald Trump’s staunchest allies, is to step down as head of the US’s Justice Department.

Professor Black pointed out that Mr Barr was actually acting Attorney General way back in 1991 and was the one to announce that Megrahi and Fhimah were being charged.

“Now that he’s about to leave the scene, I think he wants to go out and his name to be remembered: Lockerbie at the beginning and Lockerbie at the end,” Professor Black said. (...)

Professor Black, who has long argued that Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence brought before Camp Zeist, suggested cynics might view attempts to extradite Musad as an attempt to make an impact on the appeal process.

“The other possibility is that it is a blatant attempt to influence the Scottish judges because they have got the latest Megrahi appeal before them and we await their judgement,” Professor Black said.

The argument would be that the existence of another high-profile Libyan suspect, alongside Megrahi, would back up the case for Libyan involvement in the crime.

“Is this an American attempt to influence the judges to uphold the Megrahi conviction? That’s a very, very cynical view.”

But cynicism was how the development was greeted by Megrahi family’s lawyer, Aamer Anwar.

“It’s difficult not to be cynical about the motivation of the Americans, that on the eve of the anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing as well as the appeal decision, the US now wish to indict an individual, 32 years after the bombing, what exactly have they been doing up until now?” said Mr Anwar

“Why would the Attorney General William Barr wait until just as he is about to step down from the Justice Department, considering that he was involved with this case since 1991.”

“It’s difficult not to be cynical about the motivation of the Americans"

[What follows is excerpted from a report in today's edition of The National headlined Lockerbie appeal lawyer raises questions over timing of US suspect announcement:]

A lawyer representing the family of the late Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in their court bid to clear him of blame for the Lockerbie bombing has criticised America’s timing in announcing it intended to indict another man for the atrocity. (...)

American media reports claimed the US Justice Department expected to unseal charges in the coming days, with Abu Agila Mas’ud named as the suspect that will be indicted.

Five appeal judges in Edinburgh are currently deliberating whether to acquit Megrahi after the conclusion of the third appeal against his conviction last month.

Lawyer Aamer Anwar, who is acting for the Megrahi family, said the timing of the American announcement was suspect.

“How ‘convenient’ that this should happen just as the decision of the Megrahi miscarriage of justice appeal in the Scottish courts is awaited,” he said. “It’s difficult not to be cynical about the motivation of the Americans, that on the eve of the anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing as well as the appeal decision, the US now wish to indict an individual, 32 years after the bombing, what exactly have they been doing up until now?

“Why would the Attorney General William Barr wait just as he is about to step down from the Justice Department, considering that he has been involved with this case since 1991 … It is once again a matter of deep concern that the Americans claim to have shared information with Scottish authorities in 2017, yet for some reason this information was never disclosed to the Megrahi family’s legal team.”

Anwar’s comments came as Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the attack and is convinced that Megrahi was innocent, said he hoped the truth would come out. He told BBC Breakfast: “My position has been difficult in that I cannot bring myself to feel that the evidence we’ve heard so far does in fact point us towards the truth of who committed those 270 foul murders back in 1988 … I do hope that with what’s going on at the moment, coming up to the 32nd anniversary of this awful business on Monday, that some truth will come out of what’s happening now.”

US journalist Ken Dornstein told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that he had passed fresh information about Mas’ud to the FBI after he discovered more details about him.

He added: “I think a little bit of truth, if it can be established beyond any real doubt in this case, is always important to fight for.”

Lockerbie bombing: US said to be near charges for another suspect in 1988 plane crash

[This is the headline over a report just published on the website of The Wall Street Journal. It reads in part:]

US prosecutors are expected to unseal charges against a suspect they allege was a top bomb-maker for the late Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and assembled the device that blew up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, opening a new chapter in one of the world’s longest and most sprawling terrorism investigations.

The Justice Department is expected to unseal a criminal complaint against Abu Agila Mohammad Masud, who is currently held by Libyan authorities, in the coming days and to seek his extradition for trial on charges in US federal court, according to senior department officials. (...)

The case, filed by prosecutors in the US attorney’s office in Washington, DC, is based largely on a confession that Mr Masud gave to Libyan authorities in 2012, which was turned over to Scottish authorities in 2017, as well as travel and immigration records of Mr Masud, US officials said.

Libyan officials didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the charges against Mr Masud.

Only one man — Abdel Baset al-Megrahi — was convicted by Scottish judges of playing a role in the attack, leaving many of the victims’ families saying they felt robbed of justice for the crimes. Megrahi was released eight years after his 2001 conviction on “compassionate grounds” and he died in 2012.

His family is appealing the verdict, which was made by a special panel of judges without a jury. Some prominent Scottish jurists and family members of the victims have questioned the evidence presented and the procedure used for the trial, which was held at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in a bid to find a neutral locale. UK prosecutors have argued that the case was properly prosecuted and the judges’ initial verdict should stand and US law-enforcement authorities have long supported the guilty verdict.

The case is also of personal significance to Attorney General William Barr, who had announced US charges against Megrahi and another Libyan official in his first major press conference in his first stint in the job in 1991. He is expected to unveil the new case at a press conference in the next few days, officials said, in what will be one of his last official public acts before he steps down from serving in the post a second time later this week.

In announcing the case as acting attorney general in the Bush administration in 1991, Mr Barr said: “we will not rest until all those responsible are brought to justice.” The efforts to prosecute the men drifted for years. Scottish prosecutors had brought a parallel case, and it wasn’t until 1999—after years of wrangling among the US, the UK and Libya—that the Gadhafi regime handed over Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah. Mr Fhimah was acquitted, and Megrahi was given a life sentence.

Evidence in the Megrahi prosecution included the remains of clothing from a suitcase thought to have carried the bomb. Investigators traced the clothing to a shop in Malta, whose owner identified Megrahi as the man who purchased it. Investigators also found remnants of a thumb-size timer, which they traced to a Swiss company that had contacts with Libya.

Mr Masud faces charges of destruction of an aircraft resulting in death and destruction of a vehicle of interstate commerce resulting in death. US officials said he traveled to Malta just before the bombing, constructed the bomb there and filled the suitcase with clothing before it was ultimately placed on Pan Am 103.

In Libya, the charges against a former Gadhafi regime official recall an era of an era of terror and repression under the former government. (...)

Some Libyans still believe their country was falsely accused. But many regard any accusations against the former regime as the work of a deposed and discredited government.

The United Nations Security Council put sanctions on Libya over the Lockerbie attack, isolating the country internationally. The UN lifted the sanctions in 2003 after the government agreed to pay out compensation to the victims, easing Libya’s isolation. (...)

Libyan authorities have questioned jailed former regime officials in connection with the bombing, according to Mohammed Ali Abdullah, an adviser to the Tripoli government. Among those questioned was Abdullah Senussi, Gadhafi’s former intelligence chief, who is being held in a prison in Tripoli and also has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.

The Lockerbie bombing wasn’t the only international act of terror the Gadhafi regime was accused of carrying out. In 1986, Libyan agents bombed a nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people including two American soldiers and injuring more than 200 others. In 2001, a German court convicted a former Libyan diplomat and three accomplices over the attack.

[RB: A last throw of the dice over Lockerbie by William Barr before he demits office as US Attorney General. Abu Agila Masud's name has long featured in speculation about the Lockerbie case. The most balanced consideration of his position comes in (a) John Ashton's article about the Ken Dornstein film in the Scottish Review "The coverage of the film is more notable for what it omits than what it reveals" and (b) Kevin Bannon's A response to the Dornstein documentary, both in November 2015.]

Lockerbie questions that US Attorney General William Barr needs to answer

[What follows is excerpted from an article by John Schindler published today on the Top Secret Umbra website:]

With just six weeks left for the Trump administration, speculation is swirling that Attorney General William Barr may step down before the official presidential transition on January 20. Barr has fallen out of favor with the White House since his admission last week that the Department of Justice’s investigation of our November 3 election has uncovered no significant voting fraud, contrary to the loud claims of President Donald Trump and his enraged surrogates. A longtime liberal bugbear, Barr suddenly became the Oval Office’s new whipping boy instead, and the attorney general is reportedly tired of the public presidential abuse. 

That would be the second time that Barr steps down as the attorney general (...)

Before we get to his decisions as Trump’s attorney general, we should first ask Bill Barr about what happened the last time he headed the Justice Department.

Above all, why did Attorney General Barr back in mid-November 1991 decide to indict two Libyan spies for the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, a terrible crime that killed 270 innocent people. Barr’s announcement stunned our Intelligence Community, which had investigated that terrorist atrocity for nearly three years in voluminous detail, yet never suspected that Libya stood behind the attack.

Three decades ago, the Lockerbie tragedy loomed large in American news. A bomb inside a suitcase stowed in the Boeing 747’s forward left luggage container tore the airliner apart as it cruised at 31,000 feet, headed for New York. All 243 passengers and 16 crew on the Pan Am jumbo jet died, as did 11 people in the town of Lockerbie, which was showered by the flaming wreckage of the shattered 747. One hundred and ninety of the dead were Americans, including 35 Syracuse University students headed home for Christmas after a European semester abroad.

It didn’t take long for diligent British investigators to find the remnants of the Samsonite suitcase which contained less than a pound of Semtex plastic explosive manufactured in Czechoslovakia and hidden in a Toshiba radio cassette recorder. That trail quickly led to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, a radical Arab terrorist group that was headed by Ahmed Jibril, a former Syrian army officer. In the eyes of Western intelligence, the PFLP-GC was little more than an extension of Syria’s security services.

Intriguingly, less than two months before the Lockerbie attack, West German police rolled up a PFLP-GC bomb-making cell around Frankfurt, seizing four bombs made of Semtex hidden in Toshiba radios. Since Pan Am 103 originated in Frankfurt and that was the exact same kind of bomb which took down the doomed airliner, none of this seemed coincidental. Western intelligence circles heard chatter in the autumn of 1988 that the PFLP-GC, whose fifth Frankfurt bomb was never found by police, was planning to blow up U.S. airliners. Plus, one of the men taken into custody was Marwan Khreesat, a veteran bomb-maker who was believed to be behind the downing of a Swissair jetliner back in 1970, a terrorist attack which killed 47 people.

Before long, American intelligence believed that Iran was really behind the downing of Flight 103, given known close connections between Syrian intelligence and Iranian spy agencies. Neither was Tehran’s motive difficult to ascertain. A few months before, on July 3, 1988, the cruiser USS Vincennes, on station in the Persian Gulf, mistakenly shot down an Iran Air Airbus, a terrible accident which killed all 290 people aboard, including 66 children. Iran’s revolutionary regime promised revenge, and the Intelligence Community assessed that they got it over Scotland. As I explained on the thirtieth anniversary of the Lockerbie horror, that Iran stood behind the attack:

Was the conclusion of US intelligence, particularly when the National Security Agency provided top-secret electronic intercepts which demonstrated that Tehran had commissioned the PFLP-GC to down Pan Am 103 (...) One veteran NSA analyst told me years later that his counterterrorism team “had no doubt” of Iranian culpability. Bob Baer, the veteran CIA officer, has stated that his agency believed just as unanimously that Tehran was behind the bombing. Within a year of the attack, our Intelligence Community assessed confidently that Lockerbie was an Iranian operation executed by Syrian cut-outs, and that take was shared by several allies with solid Middle Eastern insights, including Israeli intelligence.

The IC was therefore taken aback on November 14, 1991, when Attorney General Barr announced the indictment of two Libyan spies, Abdelbaset el-Megrahi and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, for the downing of Pan Am 103. Libya denied the accusations, as did the two Libyan intelligence officers, and it took Britain almost a decade to bring the men to trial. In a unique arrangement, the trial was held in the Netherlands under Scottish law. In the end, the court did not convict Fhimah but did find Megrahi guilty of 270 counts of murder in early 2001. Megrahi maintained he was framed and, suffering from cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds in 2009. He returned to Libya and succumbed to cancer there in May 2012, protesting his innocence to the end.

Quite a few people who looked at the evidence believed that Megrahi really may have been innocent, including some relatives of Pan Am 103 victims. Many in intelligence circles had doubts too, particularly because the prosecution’s star witness, Abdul Majid Giaka, was another Libyan intelligence officer who became a CIA asset. Giaka claimed to have witnessed Megrahi and Fhimah’s preparations in Malta to take down Pan Am 103 with a bomb made by Libyan intelligence. The Scottish court found Giaka less than credible, yet his claims against Megrahi stood up adequately to produce a conviction.

CIA made Giaka available to the court as the star witness, while obscuring some of their clandestine relationship with the Libyan spy. Langley offered several of its own officers to the court as well, something CIA recounted with pride in its official telling of their support to the Lockerbie trial, but the agency was careful to only produce officials who endorsed the Libya-did-it hypothesis.

There was the rub. Some CIA officers who were close to Giaka did not find his claims about Pan Am 103 and his own intelligence service’s involvement to be credible; in fact, they considered their “star” to be an unreliable fabricator. However, this secret – which raises fundamental questions about the US government’s official position on Lockerbie since late 1991 – was kept confined to spy circles for decades. Until now.

John Holt, a retired CIA officer who served as Giaka’s handler three decades ago, has broken his silence, granting a detailed interview to British media about his role in this sensational case. The 68-year-old Holt spoke out for the first time about what really happened behind the scenes with Giaka, whom he dismissed as an asset who was prone to “making up stories.” Giaka was far from a reliable source and the former American spy opined that CIA kept Holt away from the trial, since agency leaders knew that his account contradicted the official US position on Lockerbie. As he explained:

I handled Abdul-Majid Giaka in 1989 for a whole year during which he never mentioned Libyan involvement in the bombing. My cables [back to CIA headquarters] showed he was a car mechanic who was placed by Libyan Intelligence as Malta Airport office manager with Libyan Arab Airlines and had very little information about anything to do with bombs – or Lockerbie. He felt humiliated by Megrahi, who was an official with the Libyan Intelligence Service. “I was treated,” he said, “like a dog when Megrahi came to the office.” That's all reported in my cables, so CIA knew Giaka had a grudge against Megrahi.

This was a personal vendetta, in other words, one that was driven by Giaka’s needs and his changing memory, as Holt elaborated:

Every time I met Giaka, which was each month or two, I would also ask him if he had any information at all about the Pan-Am bombing. All of us CIA and FBI field officers were asked by the CIA to keep pressing our assets for any answers or clues.  His answer was always: No.

I expressed my opinion to the FBI that Giaka was nothing more than a wannabe who was not a real Intel Officer for the Libyans. He had no information [about] Lockerbie, and I told the CIA all this in comments I made in my cables. He went back to Libya at the end of 1989 and I moved on to another assignment.  

In 1991, Giaka told the CIA that he had been exposed and the Libyans would kill him. When he was told he was useless to our intelligence services, he began making up stories. It was only when he needed desperately to get some financial and logistical support from the US to flee Libya in 1991 that he started telling the CIA things relevant to the Pan Am 103 bombing.

This fix was in, however, and Holt found his first-hand view of the case sidelined by his own agency. His cables which illuminated Giaka’s unreliability as a source were not shared by CIA with the Scottish court, while Langley declined to let Holt provide evidence at the trial. “We now all need to admit we got the wrong man, and focus on the real culprits,” Holt explained, pointing a finger at Bill Barr:

I have reason to believe there was a concerted effort, for unexplained reasons, to switch the original investigations away from Iran and its bomb-making Palestinian extremist ally the PFLP—General Command. Now we should focus a new investigation on the Iranians and their links with the bomber…I would start by asking the current attorney general, William Barr, why he suddenly switched focus in 1991, when he was also attorney general, from where clear evidence was leading, toward a much less likely scenario involving Libyans.

In May of this year, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ordered a fresh look into Abdelbaset el-Megrahi’s conviction. So far, this review has revealed claims that the prosecution presented a distorted version of the late Megrahi’s alleged role based on “cherrypicked” evidence in order to obtain a conviction. Bill Barr won’t be attorney general for much longer and he ought to avail himself of the opportunity to explain why credible information from veteran intelligence officers like John Holt was ignored to make a case against Megrahi, who may not be guilty of his supposed role in the murder of 270 innocent people.

Nearly a year ago, Attorney General Barr delivered remarks about the Pan Am 103 tragedy at a memorial service held at Arlington National Cemetery. He commemorated the dead of Lockerbie: “The Americans who died that day were attacked because they were Americans. They died for their country. They deserve to be honored by our nation.” Barr added that the case remains far from over for him: “In 1991, I made a pledge to you on behalf of the American law-enforcement community: ‘We will not rest until all those responsible are brought to justice.’ That is still our pledge. For me personally, this is still very much unfinished business.” The thirty-second anniversary of the Lockerbie attack is two weeks from today. If Barr meant what he said about resolving that tragedy’s unfinished business, John Holt’s testimony is an excellent place to commence the search for the full truth about what happened to Pan Am 103.

Majid Giaka's CIA handler speaks out "after a lifetime of silence"

[What follows is excerpted from a report by Paul Martin headlined Former CIA agent reveals he was excluded from Lockerbie bombing inquiry published today on The Telegraph website:]

A former CIA agent has claimed he was excluded from the original Lockerbie bombing trial and that investigators should turn their attention to the "true culprit" – Iran.

John Holt, 68, says he was the author of secret cables showing that the Libyan double agent put forward by Scottish prosecutors as the star witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial had a history of "making up stories".

Mr Holt was never sent to the trial by his bosses, even though he had been the CIA handler for Libyan double agent and principal witness Abdul-Majid Giaka.

"I have reason to believe there was a concerted effort, for unexplained reasons, to switch the original investigations away from Iran and its bomb-making Palestinian extremist ally the PFLP General Command. Now we should focus a new investigation on the Iranians and their links with the bomber," he told The Telegraph in an exclusive interview.

"I would start by asking the current Attorney General, William Barr, why he suddenly switched focus in 1991, when he was also Attorney General, from where clear evidence was leading, toward a much less likely scenario involving Libyans."

Mr Holt spoke out for the first time as Scottish Supreme Court judges consider whether to quash the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who died of cancer in 2012. (...)

Giaka became a US asset after claiming he had information about Libyan involvement with terrorism while working as an assistant to the station manager of Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA) in Malta.

Explaining the key importance of his cables, Mr Holt said: "I handled Abdul-Majid Giaka in 1989 for a whole year during which he never mentioned Libyan involvement in the bombing.

"My cables showed he was a car mechanic who was placed by Libyan Intelligence as Malta Airport office manager with Libyan Arab Airlines and had very little information about anything to do with bombs – or Lockerbie.

"He felt humiliated by Megrahi, who was an official with the Libyan Intelligence Service. 'I was treated,' he said, 'like a dog when Megrahi came to the office.'  

"That's all reported in my cables, so the CIA knew Giaka had a grudge against Megrahi.

"Every time I met Giaka, which was each month or two, I would also ask him if he had any information at all about the Pan-Am bombing. All of us CIA and FBI field officers were asked by the CIA to keep pressing our assets for any answers or clues.  His answer was always: No.

“I expressed my opinion to the FBI that Giaka was nothing more than a wannabe who was not a real Intel Officer for the Libyans. He had no information re Lockerbie, and I told the CIA all this in comments I made in my cables. He went back to Libya at the end of 1989 and I moved on to another assignment.  

"In 1991 Giaka told the CIA that he had been exposed and the Libyans would kill him. When he was told he was useless to our intelligence services [the CIA and FBI], he began making up stories.

"It was only when he needed desperately to get some financial and logistical support from the US to flee Libya in 1991 that he started telling the CIA things relevant to the PanAm-103 bombings – like hearing Megrahi and another man talking about a plan to bomb an American airliner." (...)

Mr Holt alleges he first realised there was an effort to distort the realities when called into the office of the CIA director George Tenet.  

There, his description of Giaka was not included in the initial presentation of evidence to the trial. Later, summoned a second time to the director's office, his cables were thrust in front of him by FBI agents and he claims he was told to sign that they were written by him. He says no explanation was given. These were eventually released to the trial by the CIA, with some 'redaction', in 2000.

"Operational cables that I wrote did not get sent to the original trial," he revealed. "They were withheld by the CIA and the FBI, who – even when my cables did emerge – declined to let me give evidence to the Scottish court hearing, held in Camp Zeist near Utrecht.  

"We now all need to admit we got the wrong man, and focus on the real culprits."

After 24 years of distinguished service with the CIA, Mr Holt has had deep concerns about speaking out. He has chosen his words with great caution, anxious to avoid accusations that he has leaked any secrets that could compromise his former agency.

"I'm speaking out now, after a lifetime of silence. But I feel deeply frustrated and I want justice to be done," he said.

Mr Holt believes intelligence services worldwide already have enough evidence to pinpoint the Lockerbie perpetrators.

"Whatever the Scottish Supreme Court decides, Britain should reopen the whole Lockerbie saga, have a heart-to-heart with the Americans, and go after Iran," he told The Telegraph.

"I have reason to believe that the three security agencies of the US Government were working on evidence pointing directly to Iran, before the Libyan connection was brought into play.  I believe the US Government tried to hide evidence for political reasons, and Britain also was willing to go along with this.

"I have reason to believe that a crucial decision was made in 1991 by the US Justice Department and its enforcement arm the FBI: to drop all evidence pointing toward Iran and instead manipulate the evidence to place blame on Gaddafi's Libya. Gaddafi was a long-time nemesis to numerous US presidents."

Mr Holt feels that Americans were particularly keen to pin the blame for Lockerbie on Libya because of an ongoing feud. After the coup that brought Gaddafi to power, the Libyans had expelled American oil companies from oil drilling fields, and US forces from a massive American-built airbase constructed during the Cold War.

And in the 1980s the Gaddafi regime was suspected of being a massive danger to the West by developing a secret WMD programme.

He said the first thing British and US intelligence officers should do is demand access to the former chief of Libyan intelligence, Abdallah Senoussi, son-in-law of Colonel Gaddafi, who is still languishing in a Libyan jail under sentence of death. 

Gaddafi and his henchmen were overthrown, with British military intervention, in 2011 and Senoussi, now aged 60, was convicted in 2015 for crimes against humanity that had no connection with Lockerbie.

"An interpretation is that the British and the US are not demanding to see him – because they already know Libya did not do it," says Mr Holt.

To preserve a 31-year-old lie, Britain is ready to tarnish Scottish justice

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Mustafa Fetouri published today on the website of Middle East Monitor. It reads in part:]

The third appeal hearing for the Lockerbie bombing's only conviction ended last Thursday before Scotland's highest court. The five judges have now retired to deliberate their verdict. Presiding Lord Justice General Colin Sutherland, Scotland's most senior judge, said that the panel will deliver its written opinion "as soon as it possibly can" after three days of submissions.

In 2001, Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer, was convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December, 1988. The blast killed all 270 people on board. However, the verdict has been challenged by Al-Megrahi, his family, some of the victims' families and the legal community in Scotland itself.

In March this year, a Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) permitted Al-Megrahi's family appeal, posthumously, before the country's highest court. The SCCRC cited a possible "miscarriage of justice" in the first trial. In particular, it pointed out that the guilty ruling was "unreasonable" and the British government withheld evidence from Al-Megrahi's defence team that might have proved his innocence from the start. Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi died of cancer at his home in Libya in 2012.

Claire Mitchell, QC, acting for Al-Megrahi's family, said that the way that he had been identified in the first trial was "highly prejudicial". A Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, was the prosecution's star witness in the 2001 trial. He identified Al-Megrahi from a photograph as the person who bought the clothes from his shop in which the bomb, it was alleged, was wrapped and put in a suitcase that Al-Megrahi passed onto the luggage feeder of the doomed flight. However, Gauci's testimony has been regarded as untrustworthy since it emerged that he received money in return for his testimony. The British government again withheld documents that the defence believes could help prove Al-Megrahi's innocence.

What is at stake here is not only the truth about Britain's deadliest terror attack, but also the reputation of the Scottish justice system. (...)

Importantly, families of British victims also believed that the Libyan was wrongly convicted for the atrocity. In fact, they went as far as campaigning for a retrial. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed on the flight, had for years believed in Al-Megrahi's innocence. Swire even helped the Libyan's family to bring about the third appeal in the case. "I'm delighted that the case has been referred back to the Appeal Court," he said after the SCCRC decision in March.

The only party that still wants to maintain the 31-year-old narrative about the Lockerbie bombing seem to be the British government. It has, again, withheld documents from the defence and still refuses to hold a public inquiry into the tragedy despite repeated requests to do so. It looks as if the government in Westminster does not want the truth to come out, even if that means tarnishing the Scottish justice system. However, it now it looks as if the government has a new, unlikely, ally in this matter.

Libya's Government of National Accord (GNA) has defunded the case for no obvious reason. By cutting funding to the defence team, the GNA is breaking Libyan law that obliges it to help citizens facing legal issues abroad. This suggests that it either approves of what Westminster is doing, or is under pressure from the British to drop its backing for the appeal.

Moreover, the GNA knows very well that the Lockerbie bombing is not just a case of a misdemeanour by a Libyan citizen in another country. Lockerbie is, in fact, a national issue for all Libyans, because they were all, in effect, punished for it collectively by the imposition of UN resolutions and sanctions. The latter, through Resolution 883, for example, imposed a freeze on assets held abroad, a ban on sales of certain equipment and a ban on all commercial flights into and out of the country.

Between 1992 and 1999, thousands of Libyans who had to travel abroad, including diplomats, were forced to take dangerous overland journeys to Tunisia or Egypt, or go to Malta by sea in order to catch flights to their destinations further afield. Foreigners visiting Libya had to endure the same procedure in reverse.

Furthermore, Al-Megrahi's defence team are confident that their appeal this time has all the ingredients necessary for a successful outcome. The leading defence lawyer, Aamer Anwar, told me that his team mounted a "robust appeal".

In the absence of GNA funding, Anwar was forced to launch some online fundraising to meet part of his expenses which have been mounting for the past six years since he first took up the case. He suspects that the GNA was put under pressure from the British government to steer away from the case and that Boris Johnson, when he was foreign minister, discussed Lockerbie with GNA officials when he visited Libya twice in 2017. Anwar is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act request about these visits. He also told me that his legal team in Libya has been instructed to file a case against the GNA for its refusal to fund the Megrahi appeal.

If nothing else, the appeal has once again rallied many Libyans around the case as a national cause. This is evident by the hundreds of comments on social media which generally shame the GNA and accuse it of betraying the entire country, not just Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi. 

The real perpetrators of Lockerbie bombing still to be brought to book

[This is the headline over a letter by Rev Dr John Cameron published on the website of the Belfast Telegraph on 1 December 2020. It reads as follows:]

In 1994 Nelson Mandela offered South Africa as a neutral venue for the Pan Am atrocity trial, but this was turned down by John Major.

His offer was also rejected by Tony Blair at the 1997 Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Edinburgh.

In words that still haunt our judiciary, Mandela warned “no one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge” in the Lockerbie case.

A life-long friend, the late Graham Cox, was Sheriff Principal of South Strathclyde, Dumfries and Galloway when Fhimah and Megrahi were arrested.

They appeared before him on April 6, 1999 at a makeshift Scottish court at Kamp Van Zeist in Holland.

In spite of his suspicion that the prosecution had arrested the wrong men, this court appearance starting off the subsequent legal proceedings.

Cox had no doubt the bombing resulted from the shooting down of Iran Air 655 by the USS Vincennes in July 1988, or that the Iranians recruited the PFLP-General Command.

Later, when Mandela asked the Kirk to intervene in a “serious miscarriage of justice”, Cox pointed me to the unsafe forensics, the unlikely use of a long-range timer and the fact that the bomb entered the system at Heathrow.

My report for the Kirk was used by Al Jazeera in a documentary which left no doubt of Megrahi’s innocence. [RB: Dr Cameron's report and the Al Jazeera documentary are referred to here, at the text accompanying footnote 46.]

Sadly, Cox warned against any hope that the verdict might be reversed.

Lord Fraser, then our senior law officer, had admitted the key witness Tony Gauci wasn’t “the full shilling”, had been paid $3m by the US and that the trial was a farce, but “nobody wants this can of worms opened”.

Last Megrahi appeal ruling means a last chance at redemption

[This is the headline over an article by Andrew Tickell in today's edition of The National. It reads in part:]

On any other day, in any other month, on any other year – this hearing would be a huge international news story. The statue of King Charles II in Parliament Square in Edinburgh would be surrounded by journalists. The Court of Session’s colonnades would be sprouting cameras and camera-men, and production staff hiding from the rain.

International correspondents would be checking their makeup and adjusting their ties before cutting live to the studio to report the latest developments from inside court number one in the Court of Session. At stake in this appeal is not simply the guilt of one man – but the integrity of our criminal justice system, the reputation of Scottish justice – and the real possibility the wrong person was convicted of the murder of 270 people and spent eight years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

But this week? This week, Parliament House’s sphinxes looked down on an empty square. There were no cameras flashing, no scrambled news crews, no American accents ricocheting off the old stones, no sober courtroom shots of the advocates entering and leaving proceedings, no family of the convicted man, none of the bereaved, no clenched fists, no defiant statements, no drama and no fuss. The Lockerbie case has returned to the Appeal Court for the third time – but Covid-19 spares none of us.

Instead, five of the country’s most experienced judges assembled online to hear one of the biggest appeals in Scottish legal history. Without the dramatic courtroom visuals, the news story didn’t quite have the impact you might expect. The journalists and the families were dialing in. The advocates too. Gone were the traditional wigs and gowns.

This was a sort of Zoom hearing over three days, where the gravity of the submissions was counterpoised with the ­informality and ordinariness of the medium (...) 

Before the court, the lawyers for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s family renewed their historic submission: his conviction was a miscarriage of justice. He was, they say, not guilty of steering the explosive device onto Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988. He was, they say, wrongly convicted by the Zeist court which was manned – lest we forget – not by 15 jurors, but by three High Court judges.

But innocence isn’t a ground of appeal in Scotland. Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and Maclean heard the evidence and voted to convict in January 2001, contrary to the expectations of many court-watchers who had sat and listened to the Crown case.

As Megrahi discovered in his first appeal – overturning a conviction is no small matter in an ordinary criminal case. When that conviction is a screamingly high profile, geopolitically significant decision involving the deaths of 270 innocent people? Well, best of luck.

There’s only one ground of appeal against conviction in Scots law. It is this: that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Miscarriages of justice take many different forms. Sometimes, the judge misdirects the jury on the law. Sometimes evidence was admitted which should not have been; sometimes evidence is excluded which ought to have been allowed. Sometimes the case turns on ­corroboration – or the lack of it. Sometimes new evidence throws a whole new complexion on the case. Sometimes police and prosecutors have been found to fiddle the evidence. Sometimes the defence is such a disaster the whole trial becomes unfair.

Here, two main submissions survived Criminal Cases Review Commission scrutiny, giving Megrahi’s family a third – and almost certainly final – opportunity to clear their father’s name. First, they argue, that no reasonable tribunal could have convicted Megrahi on the evidence that was heard.

Juries leave no notes explaining their reasoning, but the Zeist tribunal was a different beast. Running over 80 pages, the judges explained – step by step – the evidence they accepted and the evidence they rejected, who they found credible, and whose evidence was not.

Megrahi’s advocates contend the court’s reasoning doesn’t hold together. The lawyers’ attack focuses on the evidence of the lynchpin witness – Anthony Gauci. The Maltese shopkeeper’s evidence was the vital link in the chain connecting Megrahi to the debris which fell over Lockerbie in the run up to Christmas in 1989. But considerable uncertainty characterised Gauci’s evidence.

His eyewitness identification of Megrahi as the purchaser of clothes – clothes the Crown say ultimately found their way into the suitcase which exploded over Dumfriesshire – was uncertain, the timing of the purchase ambiguous, his description of the purchaser, his age, height and appearance shifting as he told the tale.

The second ground of appeal focuses on failures of disclosure. Would it have made a difference to your evaluation of the evidence, my lords, if you’d known Gauci was in the market for a reward from the Americans? Would his interest in receiving monetary credit for his testimony impact on your assessment of his evidence?

Did the failure to disclose this financial interest rob Megrahi’s defence of the opportunity to test how far Gauci’s testimony was animated by an honest account of what he remembered, or to what extent he may have felt incentivised to associate Megrahi with the crime? Did the failure to disclose the evidence of this interest in a reward, as Gordon Jackson QC submitted this week, relegate the cross-examination to a “softly-softly” approach which could test the reliability of Gauci’s eyewitness evidence, but not its credibility?

Those are the key legal arguments. Whatever the outcome, whether the appeal is dismissed or allowed, questions about the disaster will continue, as will the sorrow of the many families across the world whose children never came home in 1989, and of the residents of the town of Lockerbie, for whom memories of the disaster still linger.

Someone caused a plane to fall from the sky over Lockerbie at 19.03 hours on December 22, 1988. Someone planted the explosive device in the hold which punctured the Boeing’s fuselage and precipitated its terrible descent. Was Megrahi the right man, but convicted in a flawed process? Was Megrahi an innocent man, dragged into the case and scape-goated for the crimes of others? And if so, who are the guilty men or women? What motivated them?

Concluding the oral hearing in Megrahi’s third appeal against ­conviction, Lord Justice General Carloway said the Court would give judgment “as soon as it possibly can”. The court has only one duty in law: to decide whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in this case. But the five-judge bench cannot but be alive to the international significance of their decision and the reaction which will inevitably follow if they conclude the Zeist tribunal reached an unsafe ­conclusion.

When Abdelbaset al Megrahi was released from Scottish custody on compassionate grounds in 2009, it caused a diplomatic incident, with angry United States senators from New York and New Jersey demanding to know why the Scottish Government had “freed the Lockerbie bomber” responsible for the deaths of so many US citizens.

How they might react to the Appeal Court quashing his conviction remains to be seen. As my old law professor Robert Black used to say, judges need to have the confidence – not only of their convictions – but of their acquittals too.

[RB: In the distant past when I was involved in training courses for Justices of the Peace, I used to stress that while it was important to have the courage of your convictions, it was even more important for judges to have the courage of their acquittals, particularly since acquittal would often entail the disapproval of those denizens of the courtroom, the procurator fiscal, the court clerk and (most important of all) the bar officer or court attendant.]

The Crown submissions in the Megrahi appeal

[What follows is excerpted from The Guardian's report today on the third and final day of the Megrahi appeal hearing:]

A government lawyer has urged a Scottish court to use incriminating evidence from the second Libyan accused of the Lockerbie bombing and uphold the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Ronnie Clancy QC, an advocate depute for the Scottish government, said the five judges hearing an appeal against Megrahi’s conviction were entitled to use diary entries from his co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, even though Fhimah was acquitted.

Fhimah’s diary had entries claiming he had acquired baggage tags which, Clancy said, would have allowed Megrahi to bypass security at Luqa airport in Malta and plant the suitcase bomb which later blew up on Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, south-west Scotland.

Clancy told the appeal that the judges at their trial, held without a jury at Camp Ziest in the Netherlands from May 2000 until January 2001, were wrong to discard that simply because they had acquitted Fhimah.

Clancy told the court: “It’s for you to make of it what you will, in particular whether you’re impressed or agree with what the trial court said, which is it’s obviously capable of having a sinister connotation in the context of Mr Megrahi’s guilt.” [RB: This is a very weak argument indeed. The trial court held that the diary entry was insufficient to infer guilt against its author, Fhimah. It is difficult to see by what process of reasoning it can be treated as an adminicle of evidence inferring the guilt of a third party, Megrahi.]

The lawyer’s recommendation came on the third day of a hearing into a posthumous appeal by Megrahi’s family (...)

After his family made a fresh application to the SCCRC, in May 2020, the commission again said his conviction could be unsafe due to significant doubts about the identification evidence against Megrahi, given by Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, and issues with the non-disclosure of evidence.

Clancy rejected the attacks by the Megrahi family’s lawyers on Gauci’s evidence, insisting his identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes used in the bomb was honest and unswayed by outside influence.

The trial judges took account of the difficulties with identification evidence, including the passage of time, the fallibility of identification evidence and suggestibility of witnesses.

“It is inconceivable that three experienced judges weren’t alive to these issues. There are plenty of indications in the text of their analysis which made it clear that they were,” Clancy said.

The SCCRC had discovered that after his trial Megrahi had an Air Libya uniform which allowed him to travel freely in and out of Malta, Clancy added. As a senior Libyan intelligence officer, who did business with the firm selling the bomb’s timer, Megrahi also had access to a fake passport, which was used in Malta on the dates the bomb was planted.

“It’s clear that the trial court explains in detail why it reached the conclusion that in did in its analysis of Tony Gauci’s evidence. The trial court’s reasoning is sensible, measured and well within the bounds of a reasonable fact-finding exercise,” he said.

Clancy finished his rebuttal on Thursday afternoon, and the appeal court announced it would give its decision at a later date.

Who made the bomb? The full truth about Lockerbie is still not being told

[This is the headline over a long report by David Horovitz published today on the website of The Times of Israel. It reads in part:]

Megrahi went to his grave protesting his innocence, and his family continues to fight to clear his name. This week, Scotland’s highest criminal court is hearing his relatives’ latest appeal against his conviction, after an independent review determined that he might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Among other flaws, the defense is highlighting that the Maltese shopkeeper who identified Megrahi as the man who purchased the incriminating clothing in the suitcase, and whose evidence has always been controversial, was paid for his testimony, a fact that was not disclosed to the defense in the original trial.

I have followed the Lockerbie case since the time of the bombing, when I was working for The Jerusalem Post as its London correspondent, and when I happened to see material in the early stages of the investigation that pointed not to Col. Gaddafi’s Libya, but rather to Iran and the Palestinian terrorist organization PFLP-GC — the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. Earlier in 1988, the US Navy’s guided-missile cruiser USS Vincennes had shot down an Iran Air Airbus in the Persian Gulf, killing all 290 passengers and crew, in a tragic case of mistaken identity. The US said it had misidentified the civilian airliner as a fighter jet. Iran had promised to avenge the deaths. Ayatollah Khomeini had vowed that the skies would “rain blood.” (...)

Just weeks before the Lockerbie blast, four devices strikingly similar to the one that would soon be utilized to such devastating effect on Flight 103 had been found in the possession of PFLP-GC members arrested in a Frankfurt suburb. That PFLP-GC cell was reported at the time to have been planning to blow up planes heading to the US and Israel. Its bombs, like those the PFLP-GC had used in the past, and like the Lockerbie device, were detonated by a barometric pressure device and timer, activated when a plane reaches a certain altitude. A fifth bomb in the Frankfurt cell’s possession was said to have disappeared; this was presumed to be the device that blew up Flight 103.

The Lockerbie investigators were initially following these leads; then they shifted their focus to Libya. In 2003, Gaddafi accepted responsibility for the bombing — though he denied ordering it — and paid compensation to the victims’ families, in accordance with UN demands for the lifting of sanctions on his country.

Almost seven years ago, a colleague of mine at The Times of Israel noticed that a man named Marwan Khreesat, a Jordanian national, maintained an Arabic-language Facebook page in which he had taken to posting pictures of the Lockerbie bombing. Khreesat was the PFLP-GC’s bombmaker-in-chief, the alleged maker of those barometric-pressure devices. He was one of those who was arrested by the German authorities in Frankfurt, only to be inexplicably released soon afterward. Now he was promising to reveal the truth about Lockerbie — to “write about Pan Am 103,” including “who was on the flight and the circumstances of the incident.”

In his posts, Khreesat also connected himself to the bombing of an El Al plane from Rome to Tel Aviv in 1972, describing that attack as “a challenge to the Israeli intelligence agents who are responsible for searching luggage and everything that goes on a plane.” The 1972 El Al bomb — another barometric-pressure device — had been hidden in a record player that two British women were duped into carrying by two Arab men who were later arrested. Although the bomb exploded, the pilot was able to make an emergency landing. “It was a successful blow against the Israeli enemy,” Khreesat wrote in a March 14, 2014, Facebook post, in which he also described spending time with PFLP-GC chief Ahmed Jibril in Rome as they waited for the attack to unfold.

In several 2013-4 Facebook posts relating to Lockerbie, Khreesat recalled his arrest two months before the bombing. He posted pictures of the destroyed cockpit of the 747 after the explosion, the painstakingly reconstructed parts of the plane wreckage, and a radio-cassette recorder like the one that held the bomb. He also asked a series of unanswered questions about the attack. “Who did the operation?” he mused in a post on the 25th anniversary of the blast. “Israel? Iran? Libya? Who carried the Toshiba explosive device [in which the bomb was hidden]?… Did the explosive device come from Malta airport like the American intelligence agencies say?… When will these riddles be solved.”

This week’s appeal by the Megrahi family was green-lighted by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in part because of “nondisclosure” of evidence to the defense team in the original trial. Some of that documentary evidence is widely reported to have been provided by Jordan’s late King Hussein and to not only to implicate the PFLP-GC in the Lockerbie atrocity, but to specify that Marwan Khreesat built the bomb.

On Friday, however, the head of the Scottish judiciary, Lord Carloway, ruled that the documents must still be withheld on the grounds of national security. Accepting a secrecy order signed by British Foreign Secretary Dominic Rabb [sic], Carloway explained, “[Rabb’s] clear view is [that the release of the documentation] would cause real harm to the national security of the UK because it would damage counter-terrorism liaison and intelligence gathering between the UK and other states… The documents had been provided in confidence to the government. Their disclosure would reduce the willingness of the state, which produced the documents, to confide information and to co-operate with the UK.”

All manner of conspiracy theories surround the Lockerbie bombing, some of which do not rule out the involvement of Libya and Megrahi, most of which revolve around the fact that nobody has been prosecuted for making the bomb, and many of which focus on the PFLP-GC and Marwan Khreesat.

Over the years, I’ve had the opportunity to raise the question of the Lockerbie bombing with several former Israeli intelligence figures, who were in office at the time of the bombing and well aware of the activities of the PFLP-GC at the time. Two of them insisted without elaboration that “Libya did it” and brushed away further questions. A third, by contrast, told me it was “clear that Jibril prepared the operation.”

Israel was “listening in” on the PFLP-GC during the months prior to Lockerbie, he said, and hearing about preparations for what “we thought was a plan to target an Israeli plane.” There was a “huge alert” in the Israeli security establishment because of indications that the PFLP-GC was about to strike, this source went on. “We told the British and the Americans what we knew, which was that there was an intention to hit an Israeli plane… We didn’t warn about a British or an American plane because we didn’t know that,” he said.

The new appeal hearing is expected to continue until Friday, with a ruling at a later date. “It is submitted in this case that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned the verdict that it did, namely the conviction of Mr Megrahi,” the defense lawyer Claire Mitchell told the judges on Tuesday. But that argument will be harder to make without those “Jordanian” documents, which the defense has said are central to the appeal. If his relatives fail to have Megrahi’s conviction overturned, their allegation of a miscarriage of justice will linger.

Marwan Khreesat died in 2016.

His Facebook page is still online.

But he never did tell the truth about Lockerbie.

Lockerbie: court 'should have been told witness wanted payment'

[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Guardian on the second day of the Megrahi appeal. It reads in part:]

The court that convicted a Libyan intelligence officer for the Lockerbie bombing should have been told a key witness wanted payment for his testimony, appeal judges have been told.

Gordon Jackson QC, part of the legal team acting for the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, said there was clear evidence that the witness Tony Gauci was interested in compensation for giving evidence, and frustrated none had emerged.

Jackson said the prosecution had an obligation to reveal that to the trial court, which convicted Megrahi of killing 270 people when Pan Am flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie in south-west Scotland in December 1988.

Instead, the relevant Scottish police interviews with Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper whose testimony convicted Megrahi, were not given to the court or the Libyan’s defence team. The undisclosed papers “showed a very clear pattern” where Gauci “had a strong motivation of a financial nature,” Jackson said.

Jackson, (...) said the defence could have aggressively pursued this with Gauci when he gave evidence, challenging his credibility.

“The information in those documents would’ve given them the basis to attack that credibility,” he told a panel of five Scottish appeal judges, headed by Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, the lord justice general.

It later emerged Gauci and his brother were paid $3m by the US government after he gave evidence – a deal not disclosed until after the trial. (...)

The case was returned to court earlier this year after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, an independent body, decided there were grounds for believing Megrahi’s conviction was unsafe.

It said there were significant issues with the trial court’s judgment about Gauci’s testimony, and the failure to disclose evidence.

On Friday, Carloway ruled that some of that undisclosed evidence, involving allegations from the Jordanians linking a Palestinian terrorist group to the attack, must remain secret.

Speaking earlier, Claire Mitchell QC, another lawyer for Megrahi’s family, represented by the Glasgow-based human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar, said the trial court had also been wrong to allow Gauci to identify Megrahi from the witness stand because Gauci had previously seen prejudicial press articles claiming Megrahi was guilty.

Ronnie Clancy QC, acting for the Scottish and UK governments, said the trial judges had acted properly and fairly in convicting Megrahi. “The crown’s position is that the appellant can’t meet the statutory test of showing no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have convicted Mr Megrahi,” he told the court.

“On the contrary, the trial court were fully entitled to make the findings which they set out in their opinion and were fully entitled to conclude Mr Megrahi was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.” In fact, Clancy said, at times they erred in Megrahi’s favour when they weighed up the evidence.

Appeal in Lockerbie bombing reaches Scotland’s highest court

[What follows is excerpted from a report published yesterday evening on the website of The New York Times:]

Scotland’s highest court began hearing a posthumous appeal on Tuesday for a Libyan man convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner that killed 270 people over the town of Lockerbie, the deadliest terrorist attack in Britain.

The appeal, lodged by the family of Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person found guilty in the midair blast, is the latest turn in a decades-long case that left many details unresolved. Mr. al-Megrahi insisted on his innocence until his death in 2012.

“We are in possession of much evidence that we have not revealed publicly,” said Aamer Anwar, a lawyer for Mr al-Megrahi’s family, adding that in his dying breath Mr al-Megrahi had wanted to clear his name. “The Megrahis regard their father as the 271st victim of Lockerbie.”

A spokesman for Crown prosecutors declined to comment, citing the continuing appeal. The prosecutors have said that they would “rigorously defend” the conviction. (...)

Mr al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer who was working undercover at Libya’s state airline, was convicted of organizing the bombing in an unusual 2001 trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law and sentenced to life in prison, with a 27-year minimum term. [RB: The only evidence that Megrahi was an intelligence officer came from the CIA informer Majid Giaka. For no explicable reason the Zeist judges accepted Giaka's evidence that Megrahi was an intelligence agent while otherwise rejecting his evidence as utterly unworthy of credit.]

He twice appealed the decision, insisting on his innocence, but abandoned the second effort after developing terminal cancer to maximize his chance of being released on compassionate grounds. He returned to Libya in 2009.

His return, escorted by Saif al-Islam, the son of the Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and greeted with cheers in Libya, angered many families of the victims, particularly Americans. The bombing came at a time of increasing tensions between the United States and Libya, and prosecutors said Mr al-Megrahi was acting as a terrorist for the government. Libya has denied involvement but paid $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in 2003 to end the country’s diplomatic isolation.

Other families have lobbied for the case to be re-examined, saying they do not believe Mr Megrahi was guilty, and some legal experts have thrown doubts on the evidence presented at the trial.

The conviction was a “miscarriage of justice,” said Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, who helped conceive the idea of holding the nonjury trial in the Netherlands and has urged a reopening of the case. Reviews of the case by an independent government-financed body have referred it to Scotland’s High Court for another examination.

If the family lost this third appeal, “that is the end of the line,” Mr Black said. But if successful, he added, it would make the Lockerbie bombing an unsolved crime without a culprit.

The appeal will look at whether evidence at the trial justified a guilty verdict. That will focus on evidence including that of a crucial witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who identified Mr al-Megrahi as the buyer of clothing linked to the bomb.

But it emerged later that Mr Gauci was at times inconsistent in recognizing Mr al-Megrahi and that he had already seen a photograph of him connected to the bombing before speaking with the police.

Some of Mr al-Megrahi’s supporters and his family have pointed to a Syrian-based militant group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, alleging that Iran ordered the attack as retaliation against the United States. Iran has denied involvement.

On Thursday, a judge also declined a request by Mr al-Megrahi’s family for access to protected government documents, saying it could harm the national security of the United Kingdom. Crown prosecutors in 2015 also said they were looking at two other Libyan suspects involved in the bombing.

The case has had an enduring international legacy, experts said. Before the investigation into the bombing, “there had never been anything comparable with so many governments involved,” Mr Black said, adding that it “set the standard for international cooperation.”

If the conviction is overturned, he said that he believed there should be an independent inquiry supported by the British and American governments. But he said that their enthusiasm for pursuing the case might be wavering, given that 32 years had passed since the bombing.

Lockerbie bombing: facts 'cherrypicked' to convict Megrahi, court told

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]

The judges who convicted a Libyan for the Lockerbie bombing reached an unjustified verdict by cherrypicking facts from a mass of conflicting evidence, an appeal court has been told.

Claire Mitchell QC, an advocate acting for the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, accused the Scottish judges who jailed him nearly 20 years ago of taking a “broad-brush approach” to contradictory claims from unreliable witnesses.

“The court has read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified,” Mitchell told five Scottish appeal judges on Tuesday. None of the most significant evidence against Megrahi met the “baseline of quality” needed for a conviction, she said.

She was addressing the court on the opening day of a posthumous appeal against Megrahi’s conviction for planting the bomb which brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. (...)

Megrahi was the only person convicted for the bombing, by a specially-convened Scottish court sitting without a jury in the Netherlands from May 2000 until January 2001. He immediately lodged an appeal, insisting he was innocent.

Five years after losing that appeal, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) ruled in 2007 his conviction could be unsafe, returning it to court. In 2009, Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and abandoned his case after winning compassionate early release. He died at home in Tripoli in 2012.

In May 2020 the SCCRC ordered a fresh appeal on behalf of Megrahi’s family, which is being held this week in a virtual hearing chaired by Lord Carloway, the lord justice general and Scotland’s most senior judge.

Mitchell said his conviction hinged on the original court’s decision to rely on the uncorroborated claims of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who alleged several years after the attack that Megrahi had bought 12 items of clothing found in the Samsonite suitcase holding the bomb.

She listed a series of inconsistencies in Gauci’s testimonies and in the trial court’s decision to fix the date of that purchase as 7 December rather than 23 November, an alternative date which the evidence also pointed to.

That date was central to Megrahi’s conviction. The senior Libyan intelligence officer was only in Malta on 7 December but was not in Malta on 23 November.

Gauci had initially repeatedly identified an Egyptian terrorist called Abu Talb as the man who bought the clothes, only to identify Megrahi later. He also first recalled the purchaser being four inches taller and nearly 30 years older than Megrahi.

Gauci claimed it rained when the purchaser left his shop; the nearby airport’s meteorologist said he did not believe it rained on 7 December. It did, however, rain on 23 November. Gauci also gave contradictory evidence about whether the town’s Christmas lights were lit on 7 December or not.

“As things stand, we have someone who cannot remember dates and is hopelessly muddled,” Mitchell said. She told the judges “the evidence was so inconsistent, so riddled with inaccuracies, that no jury could have held that the date of purchase was 7 December. [It] simply didn’t bear the weight put upon it.”

Further, there was no evidence the suitcase bomb began its unaccompanied journey on a KLM flight from Malta to Frankfurt, as the prosecution claimed, before being inserted on a Pan Am feeder flight to Heathrow.

The UK and Scottish governments are contesting the appeal, and the hearing will hear later evidence that the US government secretly paid Gauci and his brother a total of $3m for their testimony – a fact withheld from the original trial.

Thirty-two years of struggle for truth and justice

[What follows is the text of a press release issued today by Aamer Anwar & Co:]

It has been a long journey in the pursuit for truth and justice. When Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie nearly 32 years ago, killing 270 people from 21 countries, it remains the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed in the UK.

Since then the case of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi the only man ever convicted of the crime has been described as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history.

The finger of blame has long been pointed in the direction of Iran for having ordered a Syrian-Palestinian group to carry out a revenge attack for the downing of an Iranian Airbus by the U.S. six months earlier which killed all 290 on board.

The reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system has suffered internationally because of widespread doubts about the conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi.

It is in the interests of justice that these doubts can be addressed, however he was convicted in a Scottish court of law and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined.

An overturning of  the verdict for the Megrahi family and many of the families of British victims also supporting the appeal, would vindicate their belief that the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom stand accused of having lived a monumental lie for 31 years, imprisoning a man they knew to be innocent and punishing the Libyan people for a crime which they did not commit.

We are now in possession of much evidence that we have not revealed publicly as it is not appropriate to do so at this stage.

However, at the conclusion of this appeal we intend to disclose significant material about the role of individuals, nations and their politicians, because there can never be a time limit on justice or the truth emerging.

This process began for my legal team in 2014 when I first met with Dr Jim Swire and the Rev. John Mosey who lost their daughters Flora and Helga that night in Lockerbie. I pay tribute to their perseverance, compassion and courage.

Flora Swire one day before her 24th birthday, was brutally murdered along with 269 others in the Lockerbie attack. I spoke to Jim last night, he said he still aches for his daughter Flora, what might have been, the grandchildren she would have had, the love she always gave her family and the glowing medical career.

It has always been and remains his intent to see those responsible for her death brought to justice.

I also spoke yesterday to Ali the son of Al-Megrahi and he told me he was 8 years old when his father went to the Netherlands to stand trial. When his father returned to Libya to die, Ali spent most of his time next to his father and he says that until his dying breath he maintained his innocence. The Megrahi’s regard their father as the 271st victim of Lockerbie.

For my team it has been six long years but for the families we represent, finally there is hope that we are coming to the end of a very long journey, in nearly 32 years of their struggle for truth and justice.”