MacAskill: Bomber’s appeal may go ahead

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

A Scottish court could yet hear another appeal against the conviction of the Lockerbie bomber, the country’s Justice Secretary disclosed yesterday.

Kenny MacAskill, in a statement at Holyrood in which he vehemently rejected claims that he had raised the prospect of doing a deal with Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, said that such an appeal could be made before or after al-Megrahi’s death and could come from the Libyan himself, his family or campaigners who claim he is innocent.

An application would have to be made through the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) who would refer it to the High Court.

It would then be up to the court to accept or refuse the application for appeal. The SCCRC has already decided that there are grounds for a further appeal, but it has not yet published its reasons for that finding.

If al-Megrahi dies before an appeal is heard, it could be taken forward under section 303A(3) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995 Act, which would enable his family to apply to the court to have the right of appeal transferred to them. (…)

Mr MacAskill also said the Parliament would want to know whether there was a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously. “I can confirm that there is. It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC, the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference,” he said.

“These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon. It is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise.” That, he said, was a matter for others, but he would have “every confidence” in the Scottish criminal justice system if there was to be another appeal. “That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with.”

Legislation going through the Scottish Parliament later this year will allow the SCCRC to publish its statement of reasons for finding grounds for appeal. However, the SCCRC would still have to obtain clearance from the Ministry of Justice in London because of the potential for publication to breach data protection laws.

Mr MacAskill said that he had written to Ken Clarke, the Justice Secretary in the Westminster coalition, “urging him to make a decision for an exception to be made to the normal statutory data protection rules for this unique case”.

It is understood that Mr Clarke’s department is still receiving legal advice on whether the full SCCRC report can be published or whether parts of it may have to be redacted to comply with data protection legislation.

[The possibility of a further appeal after Mr Megrahi’s death is an issue that has been dealt with in this blog, for example here.]

Lockerbie tests the Scottish Government

[This is the heading over an item posted yesterday by uruisg on the Occasional Thoughts blog. It reads as follows:]

The mace in the Scottish Parliament is inscribed with the four words 'Wisdom, Justice, Compassion, Integrity'. Sadly none of these most worthy aspirations has been conspicuous in the Scottish Government's inaction over the Lockerbie problem.

Where is the wisdom in simply refusing to acknowledge the body of evidence suggesting the Megrahi conviction may have been unsafe? How is justice for the victims served by failing to pursue the truth? Where is the compassion for the bereaved relatives? And if there is fear of reputational damage to the Scottish justice system, would it not show more integrity to have the courage to face this possibility honestly and then, if necessary, put it right?

Arguably, Lockerbie is the litmus test of whether this government has the character the Scottish people aspire to in the four words on the mace. With the world watching, it may also be the test that determines whether Scotland has the confidence to stand proud as an independent nation.

[Beautifully said, Sir or Madam!]

John Ashton's response to MacAskill statement

[What follows is an item posted on John Ashton’s website Megrahi: You are my Jury:]

Below is the statement made by Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Parliament this afternoon. My comments are in regular typeface at the end of each section.

Presiding Officer, can I once again put on record my sympathy for the relatives of all those lost in the Lockerbie atrocity. Whether it is American and the many other nationalities murdered in the air or Scots lost on the ground, the anguish remains with them constantly.  However, I have been asked by the opposition to make a statement to Parliament on this matter once again and am willing to do so. Both myself and this Government have always sought to be as open and transparent as we can be on all matters relating to Lockerbie. The need for this statement relates to claims made in a book written by a former researcher with Mr Al‑ Megrahi’s legal team.  

Presiding Officer, these claims are wrong. Minutes of meetings relating to Mr Al‑Megrahi were made at the time and have, except where permission was not given by other Governments, been published. A minute of my meeting with Libyan representatives is one of them.  Unlike the claims of recent days, these minutes are not hearsay but an accurate record made at the time.  

The minute of the relevant meeting, which took place on 10 August 2009, runs to just 1 page, at least a third of which is taken up by the list of attendees, and contains only five points. It cannot possibly be described as a full minute. You can view it here. The minister should state who produced the minute and whether they did so contemporaneously.

This minute has been in the public domain since September 2009.   It is quite clear and refutes the assertions made. 

The minute quite clearly refutes nothing. The alleged conversation in question would almost certainly not have been minuted.

These records are made by impartial civil servants to ensure there is a proper historic record of important discussions.  

See first comment above.

In addition to the minute kept, Presiding Officer, let me be quite clear. Scottish Government officials were present throughout my meeting with Mr Al-Obeidi.  

This does not preclude Mr MacAskill telling Mr Obedi that it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if Abdelbaset dropped his appeal.

At no time did I or any other member of the Scottish government suggest to Mr Obeidi, to anyone connected with the Libyan government, or indeed to Mr Megrahi himself, that abandoning his appeal against conviction would in any way aid or affect his application for compassionate release. 

This is close to an absolute  denial of Obedi’s claim. However, according to Abdelbaset, Obedi said that MacAskill told him dropping the appeal would make it easier for him to grant compassionate release, not that it would aid or effect the application. This is a subtle difference, which may or may not be significant.

Let us remember what the two different processes were:  One process was an application under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, made by the Gaddafi regime.  This required an end to any appeal proceedings before a transfer could happen. The second process was an application for compassionate release made by Mr Al-Megrahi himself, to which no such condition applied. We vigorously opposed the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, negotiated by the then UK Government with the Gaddafi regime, not least because it represented interference in the Scottish legal process. We wrote to the UK Government no fewer than eight times, between June 2007 and September 2008 setting out our opposition. I considered but rejected the application for Prisoner Transfer made in respect of him. And I granted a request for compassionate release submitted by him as I believed it adhered to the laws and values we hold in Scotland. I did so on the evidence before me from the Parole Board, the Prison Governor and Director of Health and Care in the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr Al-Megrahi’s appeal being abandoned .  

Really? Even though it would have dragged the reputation of the Crown Office through the mud?

I had no involvement in Mr Al-Megrahi’s decision to drop his appeal against conviction – that was entirely a matter for him and his legal team. 

It was, in fact, a matter for Abdelbaset alone.

However Presiding Officer, one thing that is now clear from this new book as detailed on page 352, is that Mr Al‑Megrahi signed a provisional undertaking to abandon his appeal on March 23 2009. It is clear therefore he was considering dropping his appeal several months before either the two applications were put before me. At the time Mr Al-Megrahi had no way of knowing what my decision would be, either on compassionate release or on PTA.  However, he did know that a prisoner transfer application would have been refused had there been any ongoing legal proceedings. 

So what? Abdelbaset was desperate and was willing to do whatever it took to get home.

The author of the book John Ashton has himself accepted on BBC radio yesterday that the claim in the book is “hearsay”.     

This gives the misleading impression that my radio interview constituted a climbdown. In fact what I said in that interview is entirely consistent with the book, which makes clear that the claim was hearsay.

This Government has shown consistently we want to be as open and transparent as we can be on all aspects surrounding the Al-Megrahi case.  That is why we have brought forward the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) Bill to aid publication of the Statement of Reasons. As assertion by the author is that we, the Scottish Government, do not want the Statement of Reasons published.  Presiding Officer, nothing could be further from the truth.  This legislation, introduced by this Scottish Government, will enable the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information in cases they have investigated where a subsequent appeal has been abandoned. The legislation helps leave the Commission as the decision maker as to whether they publish their report on the Al-Megrahi case. Under the legislation, the Commission have to decide whether, in the whole circumstances, it is appropriate to disclose their Statement of Reasons.  There will be a range of factors the Commission will want to consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to disclose information. One key factor is likely to be how much of the Statement of the Reasons is already in the public domain.  With the publication of the book and television documentaries containing what apparently may well be significant material from the Statement of Reasons, this could be an important factor which the Commission may want to consider when they decide whether it is appropriate to disclose information they hold. As members know, we are limited within the powers of this Parliament as to how far our legislation can go in freeing up the Commission to disclose information. Data protection, which is a reserved matter, is a key obstacle to disclosure. I first spoke with Kenneth Clarke back in September 2010 on this issue.  And since our Bill was introduced, I have already written to him on three occasions on this issue. We are now faced with publication of material that is apparently from the Statement of Reasons. This means that the case for an exception to data protection rules is now overwhelming, but this is for the UK Government to act upon. That is why I have today written again to Kenneth Clarke urging that the UK Government now make a decision for an exception to be made to the normal statutory data protection rules for this unique case.  This will help ensure the wider public interest can be served and the road to publishing the Statement of Reasons is further cleared. Let no one be in any doubt. We want the Statement of Reasons published and are doing all that we can, within the powers of this Parliament, for this to happen.  

I am not qualified to comment in depth on the legal issues raised here, however, a number of better qualified commentators have observed that the government, despite what it claims, has littered the road to publication with more obstacles than are necessary.  It seems as if – much like Abdelbaset’s appeal – the whole process has been complicated in the hope that the delay will draw some of the sting from publication.

Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted in a court and that is the only place where his guilt or innocence should be determined. We recognise that some have concerns regarding the wider issues relating to the atrocity.  The wide-ranging and international nature of the issues involved means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK Government. We remain ready to co-operate on an inquiry. 

Why not hold an inquiry into the devolved issue of the Crown Office’s handling of the case?

Members will want to know whether there is a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously. Presiding Officer, I can confirm to the Chamber that there is.  It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC, the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference.  These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon. These are decisions for others to make, but I think it is important that we as a Parliament are aware of the position.  Presiding Officer, as I neither sought the abandonment nor continuation of Mr Al Megrahi’s appeal, it is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise. That is correctly a matter for others,  and I would have every confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system were there to be another appeal.   That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with. 

I doubt that the Crown Office would be so comfortable with a new appeal given that it would be accountable to the High Court for its failure to disclose exculpatory evidence to Abdelbaset’s original defence team.

We want the Commission’s report to be in the public domain to help ensure public confidence is retained in our justice system. This Government is doing all that we can to bring disclosure of the Statement of Reasons. I urge all members to support these efforts by supporting our Bill; and supporting our efforts to get the UK Government to make an exception to data protection rules.

A letter from Dr Jim Swire to PM David Cameron

[This is the headline over a letter from Jim Swire to the Prime Minister published this afternoon on the Newsnet Scotland website.  It reads as follows:]

Dear Prime Minister,

While in Edinburgh on Monday 27 February, I heard that prior to the book Megrahi: You are my Jury being launched, you had publicly claimed that it was an insult to the families of those who died at Lockerbie.

I just want you to be aware that far from being an insult, this book appears to raise issues which cast yet further doubt upon the verdict reached at Zeist against Mr Megrahi.

We all know that times are hard, but in light of the doubts that exist about this conviction it would be hugely appreciated if some effort could be diverted by Whitehall to objective examination of the fall-out from this terrible case.

Comments from Lady Thatcher's time onwards about the tragedy surely now need review. She wrote in The Downing Street Years that following the bombing by the USAF of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986.

'The much vaunted Libyan counter attack did not and could not take place. Gaddafi had not been destroyed but he had been humbled. There was a marked decline in Libyan sponsored terrorism in succeeding years.'

Yet the UK Government was telling us that Lockerbie was a Libyan atrocity from start to finish.

The paradox between those who actually try to comprehend all the available facts for and against the verdict over Megrahi and those with blind faith in the verdict is not resolving.

To comment in the way that you are reported to have done on Monday morning may be to support the wishes of the American Government and many American relatives, but what we search for is the truth, and that search is not likely to be well supported by such comments about a book which you could not possibly have read beforehand.

May I humbly suggest that you revisit The Downing Street Years, (page 449), just to check that that is indeed what she wrote: there are over 900 pages all told. Then perhaps have an objective assessment made of the contents of the Megrahi: You are my Jury book, as I feel sure that you have not the time to read all of its almost 500 pages.

Please remember that although relatively small in number, our distress at what for some of us appears to be deliberate concealment of the truth is real, and when supported by so significant a person as yourself, deeply distressing. Bereavement is a life sentence as you know only too well.

That said I would welcome the opportunity to come and discuss the situation with yourself, or members of your cabinet.

In view of all this I have made the contents of this letter publicly available (without the need for any hacking!).

Any reply, from yourself, as courtesy demands, will receive appropriate confidentiality, unless cleared by you for similar treatment.

With best wishes to you and your family,

Dr Jim Swire           

Father of Flora murdered, age 23, at Lockerbie 21/12/88.

MacAskill rejects Lockerbie claims

[This is the headline over a report published this afternoon on the heraldscotland.com website. It reads as follows:]

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill today rejected allegations that he urged the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to drop his appeal to smooth the way for his compassionate release.

Mr MacAskill came under pressure from opposition parties to make an immediate statement to the Scottish Parliament following the publication of the semi-autobiographical book Megrahi: You Are My Jury on Monday.

In the book, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi claims Mr MacAskill held a "private" discussion with Libyan foreign minister Abdulati al-Obedi in which "he gave him to understand that it would be easier to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal".

But in a statement to MSPs, Mr MacAskill said "these claims are wrong", adding that he would be "entirely comfortable" with the appeal being reopened.

He also confirmed that there is a mechanism for the appeal to be reopened even after Megrahi's death.

Mr MacAskill said: "Scottish Government officials were present throughout my meeting with Mr al-Obedi.

"At no time did I or any other member of the Scottish Government suggest to Mr al-Obedi, to anyone connected with the Libyan government, or indeed to Mr al-Megrahi himself, that abandoning his appeal against conviction would in any way aid or affect his application for compassionate release."

He added: "The Scottish Government had no interest whatsoever in Mr al-Megrahi's appeal being abandoned.

"I had no involvement in Mr al-Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal against conviction - that was entirely a matter for him and his legal team."

He said MSPs would want to know whether there is a mechanism for an appeal still to be heard, even posthumously.

He said: "I can confirm to the Chamber that there is.

"It would involve an application being made for a further reference by the SCCRC (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission), the Commission deciding to make a reference and for the High Court to accept such a reference.

"These, of course, are not matters for me as Justice Secretary to decide upon.

"These are decisions for others to make, but I think it is important that we as a Parliament are aware of the position.

"I neither sought the abandonment nor continuation of Mr al-Megrahi's appeal, it is not for me to either seek or oppose a potential appeal, posthumous or otherwise.

"That is correctly a matter for others, and I would have every confidence in the Scottish criminal justice system were there to be another appeal. That is a matter I would be entirely comfortable with."

[Another report can be found here on the BBC News website; here on the STV News website; and here on the Daily Record website.]

We should beware forensic evidence to secure convictions

[This is the headline over an article by Dr John Cameron, physicist and former Church of Scotland minister, in today’s edition of the Scottish Review.  It reads as follows:]

I first became involved in the Lockerbie case when Nelson Mandela asked the Church of Scotland to support his efforts to have Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction overturned. 

As an experienced lawyer, Mandela studied the transcripts and decided there had been a miscarriage of justice, pointing especially to serious problems with the forensic evidence. I was the only research physicist among the clergy and was the obvious person to review the evidence to produce a technical report which might be understood by the Kirk.

Scientists always select the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions to eliminate complicated constructions and keep theories grounded in the laws of science. This is 'Occam's razor' and from the outset the theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta as unaccompanied baggage and rattled around Europe seemed quite mad. I contacted everyone I knew in aviation and they all were of the opinion it was placed on board at the notoriously insecure Heathrow and that the trigger had to be barometric.

The Maltese link is so tenuous, complex and full of assumptions it depends almost totally upon the integrity of the three forensic scientists involved – and that was a big problem. Megrahi is the only person convicted on their evidence whose conviction was not reversed on appeal.

One of the UK's foremost criminal lawyers, Michael Mansfield, has long warned against our judiciary's gross over-reliance on forensic evidence to secure convictions. He said: 'Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake anyone can make is to believe its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading.'

There is, in fact, a kind of 'canteen culture' in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than seekers after truth. The scientific evidence points to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [-General Command] whose chief bomb-maker, Marwen Khreesat, was arrested in Frankfurt in December 1988.

In the boot of his car was a Toshiba cassette recorder identical to the one found later at Lockerbie with Semtex moulded inside it, a simple time delay and a barometric switch.

[In the same issue there is a contribution by David Hill which reads in part:]

With John Ashton's book blowing to smithereens any shred of credibilty left clinging to the guilty verdict on Al Megrahi (despite the BBC's selective and timid account of it) [The Herald]  led today [Tuesday 28 February] with a minor distraction about how or why the appeal was abandoned.

I know no sensible or well-informed person who believes the 'evidence' presented at the travesty at Camp Zeist would have got through a sheriff court.

I know no sensible or well-informed person who is now confident that Al Megrahi was guilty. And I recognise a growing conviction on the part of most of these preople that the sentence passed on Al Megrahi was the result of a pre-ordained and absolutely disgusting stitch between the US and the UK governments and the government of Libya to send, for whatever reasons, an innocent man to jail.

As the revelations have trickled out over the years it has become more and more probable that some in authority in Scotland were involved and I remain puzzled as to why the present Scottish Government, not in power at the the time of the trial, is dragging its feet.

I have assumed for some time that the UK, the US and particularly the Libyans have had every reason to fear an inquiry, whether a public inquiry or an Al Megrahi appeal, but once our newspapers see it as their obligation to cover up for those in power these newspapers are beyond any respect.

...the media and the Scottish Parliament totally miss the point...

[What follows is from an item headed The Transatlantic relationship posted today on the website Lockerbietruth.com maintained by Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph:]

 

With the launch of John Ashton's book Megrahi: You are my Jury, once again we see a furor about what Kenny McKaskill said  to whom about the compassionate release of Al-Megrahi.  And once again the media and the entire Scottish Parliament totally miss the point.

In a closely argued section, Ashton highlights a serious discrepancy in the evidence of British forensic scientist Alan Feraday.  Feraday's own hand-written notes prove that the electronic print on the alleged fragment of timer board found by Dr Thomas Hayes is not the same metal printed on the control MST-13 timer board supplied by Swiss manufacturers MEBO. 

Feraday wrote that the Hayes fragment printing was 100% pure tin, but that the MEBO control sample printing was an alloy composed of 70% tin and 30% lead.  He explained the difference by saying that the heat of the explosion had evaporated all - yes, 100% - of the lead content.  A highly doubtful theory indeed.  No tests were carried out at any stage to back up his theory.

In other words, Feraday's own notes provide strong evidence that the Hayes fragment might be a manufactured plant, designed to point the finger at Libya, and divert attention from Iran in America's strategic interests during the mid and late 1980's. 

This information was supplied to Al-Megrahi's defence team in 2009 only during the course of the second appeal, abandoned at an early stage to enable Al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.  It should, under rules of natural Scottish justice, have been available prior to the trial which took place in 2000. But it was concealed by the police, forensic services and the Crown Office for more than ten years. 

If Iran - who paid $11m to the Jibril terrorist group only two days after the attack - was responsible, then the bomb which brought down Pan Am 103 was constructed by Marwan Khreesat, career master bomb maker for the PFLP-GC. Khreesat was a double agent working for Jordanian security, and rumoured to be a CIA asset. 

In a set of hearsay notes recorded by the FBI and repeated during the Lockerbie trial, Khreesat claimed "He did not think he made the Lockerbie bomb". As a career mass-murderer and double and possibly triple agent, can we trust his word?  We doubt it. 

But the Lockerbie trial judges did trust his word.  Then let us ask for a moment what would have happened if they had not. If they had expressed doubt concerning the timer fragment, their verdict would have suggested that the bomb which killed 270 people at Lockerbie was made by an asset working for America.  

Could the relationship between Britain and America have survived the shock?  And is this question not of far more import than a ministerial statement in a Scottish parliament?

Lockerbie reward claim

[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today’s edition of The Herald, in which she expands upon the “Lockerbie reward” revelations made yesterday in John Ashton’s article in the Scottish Review. It reads as follows:]

A letter, seen for the first time, claims the Crown Office was aware of an application for reward money paid out to key Lockerbie witnesses.

The letter, from Detective Chief Superintendent Tom McCulloch – the senior investigating officer in the later stages of the case – to the US Justice Department, asks for a reward of $2 million for Tony Gauci and $1m for his brother Paul.

Most significantly, though, it states the Crown Office was aware of the plan to pay two of its key witnesses and had been consulted about it.

The revelation comes after an official biography of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi alleged Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill encouraged the Libyan to drop his appeal.

Mr MacAskill has denied the claims and will today mount a strong rebuttal before MSPs at Holyrood.

The letter was sent on April 19, 2002, after Megrahi's unsuccessful first appeal, but documents unearthed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission discovered financial rewards had been discussed with the Gauci brothers even before they gave their first statements. [RB: my italics]

However, the Crown Office has denied that they were complicit in any payments to witnesses.

Paying witnesses is not considered acceptable practice in Scotland – although it is common in the US.

If a witness was paid for giving evidence, the Crown would be expected to disclose the fact to allow for cross-examination by the defence.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission report says Mr Gauci's "alleged interest in financial payment" was capable of "affecting the course of the evidence and the eventual outcome of the trial".

The Crown denies payments were made before the outcome of the appeal, but arguably any information on Mr Gauci's alleged interest in financial payment should have been made available to the defence.

In the letter, Mr McCulloch states: "I am writing to confirm the submission by Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary for payment of a reward to Anthony and Paul Gauci.

"At the meeting on April 9, I proposed that $2m should be paid to Anthony Gauci and $1m to his brother Paul.

"Given the exceptional circumstances of this case, which involved the destruction of a United States aircraft with the loss of 270 innocent lives and the subsequent conviction of a Libyan intelligence agent for this crime, I would invite those charged with approving the reward to ensure the payments made to Anthony and Paul Gauci properly reflect not only the importance of their evidence, but also their integrity and courage.

"I have consulted with Crown Office about this application for payment of a reward.

"The prosecution in Scotland cannot become involved in such an application.

"It would therefore be improper for the Crown Office to offer a view on the application, although they fully recognise the importance of the evidence of Tony and Paul Gauci to the case."

A spokesman for the Crown Office said: "It is nonsense to suggest the Crown was complicit in the payment of rewards to witnesses or that it turned a blind eye to such matters.

"The letter from DCS McCulloch was sent to the US authorities after the conclusion of appeal process in 2002 and sets out clearly the Crown's position. No witness was offered any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before and during the trial and there is no evidence that any other law enforcement agency offered such an inducement."

A Government spokesman said Mr MacAskill was "extremely happy" to make a parliamentary statement to MSPs. 


[In an article headlined Big question that needs answered on Abdalbaset al-Megrahi in today's edition of The Scotsman, columnist Brian Wilson writes:]

What everyone should be seeking in this matter is the truth and not its concealment. Elected parliamentarians should be the spearhead of that ambition, rather than acting as a political shield against it.

As a society, we owe it to the victims of Lockerbie to get as close to that truth as possible – an obligation that is not diminished by the passage of time. The Court of Appeal would have been by far the best place for the completion of that process. We were denied that outcome. The questions are – why and by whom?

Why was Megrahi's defence team kept in dark about vital evidence?

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

I hope the launch of the book Megrahi: You Are My Jury will make a lot of people aware of just how compromised the Lockerbie case at Camp Zeist was, and what the implications are ("MacAskill under pressure over Megrahi appeal claim", The Herald, February 28).

The question of whether or not Muammar Gaddafi's awful clique was involved should now be seen as a tactic by those powerful entities who wished to divert attention from the awful truth; a tactic which the unfortunate Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi found himself involved in.

The picture that now emerges is that neither Megrahi nor Malta was involved, there was no evidence of the use of a long-running timer from Malta and that the real improvised explosive device (IED) was probably delivered through a break-in at Heathrow and triggered by falling air pressure in the aircraft. The IED was one of a series manufactured in Damascus and (West) Germany by bomb-maker Marwhan Khreesat, a Jordanian probably in the pay of the Americans, but ostensibly working within the Palestinian terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), led by Ahmed Jibril, a relative of Basher al Assad's father. All Khreesat's IEDs in 1988 exploded after about 38 minutes in the air. It was 38 minutes from the Heathrow tarmac when Pan Am flight 103 was over Lockerbie.

This was avoidable. Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate, told me last Thursday that the Crown Office had tried all it could to discover why it was that evidence about the Heathrow break-in "disappeared" until after the verdict against Megrahi had been reached. It tried but it failed.

Since the Khreesat-type bombs could not be flown into Heathrow (they would explode en route) the question of the break-in looks rather central to the question of how this atrocity was perpetrated.

This Heathrow material would probably have stopped the trial had it been available, yet despite staff at Heathrow having been interviewed by the Metropolitan police in January 1989 about the break-in, the Lord Advocate accepts he is unable to discover why the Met files "disappeared".

It is time for a fully empowered inquiry in which the investigating Scottish police and the Crown Office should be required to answer as to why so much vital material, on both the alleged timer fragment and the Heathrow break-in, was not provided for the defence's use at appropriate times.

[In the same newspaper is a letter from Iain A D Mann which contains the following:]

Your leader article ("Lockerbie and the pursuit of truth", February 28) is right to conclude that an independent public inquiry is the only way of finally getting the whole truth and bringing an end to this long drawn out affair which has caused so much heartache to relatives of the victims.

Have Mr MacAskill's department, the Crown Office and the legal establishment closed ranks, in a misguided attempt to protect the reputation of the Scottish justice system and the Camp Zeist trial process? I am afraid that reputations have already been badly tarnished by the public perception of secrecy, delay and obfuscation.