Sunday, 28 October 2012
How Colonel Gaddafi and the Western establishment created a pantomime world
This is the heading over a long article by Adam Curtis posted on his blog The Medium and the Message on the BBC website on 21 October. It provides a fascinating account of how perceptions of Colonel Gaddafi were built up over the years in the western media. There is much interesting material on Lockerbie, particularly in Chapters Three and Four.
Justice for Megrahi's criminality allegations
For ease of reference by those interested, I am providing here links to the correspondence between Justice for Megrahi's secretary, Robert Forrester, and the Scottish Government relating to JFM's complaints of criminal misconduct in the course of the Lockerbie investigation and prosecution.
1. The complaint letter can be read here, redacted to remove the names and official positions of those accused. In the version submitted to Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill (and now submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Police) the relevant names and official positions are disclosed.
2. The Scottish Government's response to JFM's complaint letter can be read here (page one) and here (page two).
3. JFM's reply to the Scottish Government's response can be read here.
1. The complaint letter can be read here, redacted to remove the names and official positions of those accused. In the version submitted to Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill (and now submitted to Dumfries and Galloway Police) the relevant names and official positions are disclosed.
2. The Scottish Government's response to JFM's complaint letter can be read here (page one) and here (page two).
3. JFM's reply to the Scottish Government's response can be read here.
Thursday, 25 October 2012
Scottish justice system exposed
[The following are excerpts from an item on the Justice for Megrahi press conference published on the Miscarriage of Justice? website:]
The Justice for Megrahi (JfM) Campaign Group have held a Press Conference in which they accuse the Scottish Crown Office of criminality in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie Bombing case. In response, the Crown Office have called the allegations defamatory and without substance following an earlier review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. (...)
They allege that the State has been interfering in the investigation and prosecution of the crime and continues to exert influence by not fully examining the concerns that they have raised with the Justice Secretary.
The allegations are all the more serious as this case dates back to 1988, covering periods when Scotland was governed by UK and Scottish Parliaments of all political persuasions.
In a week when South Yorkshire Police are being investigated for claims that police officers were told to falsify statements taken in the wake of the miners' strike and when the Hillsborough investigations are so serious and numerous that the Independent Police Complaints Commission can hardly cope, Scots should have been able to proudly declare that would never happen in Scotland. That however would appear to not be the case.
This case exposes the Scottish Justice System to a global stage in a way never seen before. This case has broken the normal jurisdictional boundaries, involved several of the most distinguished legal minds and should be proving beyond doubt, that the criminal law, with its strong emphasis on justice and protections for the rights of the accused, is the finest criminal system in the world. Why am I not surprised therefore that this is not the case?
With the questions surrounding this case continuing for so long and long after Megrahi and his political leaders are dead, it is time for a full and independent examination of the allegations. The continuing denials by the Crown Office in the face of the evidence only serves to prove what a corrupt organisation they really are.
But then again, I know this from personal experience of them!
[A report on the press conference on the Edinburgh Wired website can be read here.]
The Justice for Megrahi (JfM) Campaign Group have held a Press Conference in which they accuse the Scottish Crown Office of criminality in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie Bombing case. In response, the Crown Office have called the allegations defamatory and without substance following an earlier review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. (...)
They allege that the State has been interfering in the investigation and prosecution of the crime and continues to exert influence by not fully examining the concerns that they have raised with the Justice Secretary.
The allegations are all the more serious as this case dates back to 1988, covering periods when Scotland was governed by UK and Scottish Parliaments of all political persuasions.
In a week when South Yorkshire Police are being investigated for claims that police officers were told to falsify statements taken in the wake of the miners' strike and when the Hillsborough investigations are so serious and numerous that the Independent Police Complaints Commission can hardly cope, Scots should have been able to proudly declare that would never happen in Scotland. That however would appear to not be the case.
This case exposes the Scottish Justice System to a global stage in a way never seen before. This case has broken the normal jurisdictional boundaries, involved several of the most distinguished legal minds and should be proving beyond doubt, that the criminal law, with its strong emphasis on justice and protections for the rights of the accused, is the finest criminal system in the world. Why am I not surprised therefore that this is not the case?
With the questions surrounding this case continuing for so long and long after Megrahi and his political leaders are dead, it is time for a full and independent examination of the allegations. The continuing denials by the Crown Office in the face of the evidence only serves to prove what a corrupt organisation they really are.
But then again, I know this from personal experience of them!
[A report on the press conference on the Edinburgh Wired website can be read here.]
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
We need march no more, Mr MacAskill
[This is the
headline over a letter
from Jock
Thomson QC published today on the Scottish Legal website. It reads as follows:]
To Strasbourg and back if needs be. For what? For an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster which arguably brought about the greatest miscarriage of justice in our history – ever.
But I'm older and sadder and (if not wiser) certainly more tired than Mr MacAskill. Please spare me the effort. Order an Independent Public Inquiry into the shame that brought about Megrahi's conviction. Stifle your 'we've-heard-it-all-before' yawns: when, until now, has Crown Office been described as being "institutionally corrupt"? (Scottish Law Reporter 17 Oct).
If your hands are clean;
If the hands of your Law Officers and those in Crown Office are clean;
If what happened at Camp Zeist can be said to be clean;
What sir, have you to fear?
"I have marched for CND and
marched against the Iraq War. I am tired of marching." The Justice
Secretary and I have that much in common. I share his abhorrence of nuclear
weapons. I too have marched for CND, against the Iraq War and Walked for the
World. I too am tired, but I have one march (at least) left in me.
To Strasbourg and back if needs be. For what? For an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster which arguably brought about the greatest miscarriage of justice in our history – ever.
But I'm older and sadder and (if not wiser) certainly more tired than Mr MacAskill. Please spare me the effort. Order an Independent Public Inquiry into the shame that brought about Megrahi's conviction. Stifle your 'we've-heard-it-all-before' yawns: when, until now, has Crown Office been described as being "institutionally corrupt"? (Scottish Law Reporter 17 Oct).
If your hands are clean;
If the hands of your Law Officers and those in Crown Office are clean;
If what happened at Camp Zeist can be said to be clean;
What sir, have you to fear?
Scottish police are accused of acting illegally
[This is the
headline over a report
published today in the Maltese newspaper The
Times. It reads in part:]
The Scottish police acted
illegally in the course of investigations over the Lockerbie bombing, according
to the campaign group Justice for Megrahi.
Members of the group
yesterday gave details of the allegations listed in a letter they sent the
Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill last month.
Robert Black, a lawyer,
said the group made six allegations of criminal misconduct by the Scottish
police in the course of investigations. (…)
Members of the prosecution team are accused by the
group of presenting a scenario to the court “which was known to be false”.
They also accuse the Dumfries and Galloway police
of concealing a witness statement in relation to an airside break-in at
Heathrow airport on the same day the bombing happened.
The Scottish Justice Ministry responded by saying
reports of criminal activity should have been reported to the police.
“The reason we did not do so was because the
allegations concern police officers within the Dumfries and Galloway police,”
Prof Black said. The group has now filed an official report and will “wait and
see” what action the police will take.
Pan Am flight 103 blew up on December 21, 1988,
over the Scottish town of Lockerbie after leaving Heathrow airport. The
terrorist attack killed 270 people.
The case put forward by the prosecution argued the
suitcase in which the bomb was placed left Malta on an Air Malta flight to
Frankfurt before being transferred to another flight to Heathrow.
Libyans Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, a Libyan
intelligence officer, and Lamin Khalifah Fhimah were accused of the bombing. At
an international trial in Camp Zeist, The Netherlands, only Mr Megrahi was
found guilty.
However, campaigners such as Prof Black and Jim
Swire, the father of a Lockerbie victim, have insisted Mr Megrahi was innocent.
In 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review
Commission concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.
Justice for Megrahi press conference
A report on the BBC News website by Scottish home affairs correspondent Reevel Alderson can be read here. An edited version of the press conference compiled by Mark Hirst for Aurora News can be viewed here. The full report by Aurora News can be seen here.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Police, Crown Office accused in widespread perversion of the course of justice over Pan Am 103
[A news report has just been published on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm, following today’s Justice for Megrahi press conference. It reads as follows:]
The Pan Am 103 debacle has taken a significant new twist as the entire criminal justice framework came under fire for a sustained and coordinated perversion of the course of justice in the handling of the Pan Am 103 investigation, trial and subsequent political cover up.
An extraordinary series of claims have been made today by the Committee of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, who lodged a series of complaints with Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill last month.
The Minister's perceived failure to address the issues have led to the group going public with their concerns.
Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd (...) is accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice by submitting false information to the Zeist trial court. [RB: Lord Boyd is accused of communicating to the Zeist Court information which members of the prosecution team, whom he consulted, knew to be false. He may himself have been an unwitting conduit of false information.]
Members of the prosecution team are accused by the group of presenting a scenario to the trail court "which was known to be false".
The group accuse Dumfries and Galloway Police of concealing a witness statement in relation to an airside break-in at Heathrow airport earlier on 21 December 1988.
"It is submitted that the concealment of this witness statement, which was or ought to have been known to Dumfries and Galloway Police and the Crown Office to be of the highest possible significance to the defence, constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice," the group said.
The letter outlining the grounds include further allegations claiming witness statements given at the Zeist trial were false, and that individuals associated with the investigation, in particular a named police officer, failed to make relevant inquiries and attempted to pervert the course of justice.
The letter represents a significant change of tactic for the Justice for Megrahi group, moving from challenging the soundness of the conviction against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, to naming those they believe may be responsible for independent criminal acts of their own, resulting in the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
In 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.
"You above all will realise the seriousness of these allegations which strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present," the group said in their letter to MacAskill.
"Effectively, we are complaining about the actions of Crown Office officials, the prosecution and investigating authorities including the police, and certain other agencies and individuals. Given the controversy surrounding this whole affair we request that you give serious thought to the independence of any investigating authority you appoint. As a group we believe that you should appoint someone outwith Scotland who has no previous direct or indirect association with Lockerbie or its ramifications."
The group had pledged to "keep these matters private and confidential for a period of thirty days," and have now publicised their concerns following the receipt of a response from Neil Rennick, the Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate, on Mr MacAskill's behalf.
The response did not propose the appointment of an internationally independent investigator as proposed by the group.
"It is not the function of the Scottish Government to investigate allegations that criminal offences have been committed. This is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate who operates independently of the Scottish Government in such matters and your letter acknowledges the importance of this separation of duties within Scotland’s justice system," Mr Rennick said.
The Justice for Megrahi group said the response "distorts and utterly misrepresents our request to you."
"We did not request that you as Justice Secretary, or any other member of the executive, investigate our allegations," the group said.
"As Secretary for Justice you have a clear duty to make sure that our justice system is administered in a way that instils public confidence in that system. We will leave it to you to decide if, by failing to facilitate a full and independent enquiry into our allegations, you have abrogated that responsibility to the people of Scotland."
The Pan Am 103 investigation has previously been challenged on the basis of the perceived politicisation of the judicial process, as well as the emergence of testimony claiming fabrication of evidence, non disclosure of material evidence to the defence, bribery of witnesses, tampering of evidence and manipuation of the trial process by government intelligence operatives.
In 2005 UN observer Hans Koechler said "the falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services, etc. are criminal offences in any country."
Former Crown Agent Norman MacFadyen was reported to the police in 2009 in relation to allegations of evidence tampering, but no charges were ever brought.
The group's letter to MacAskill can be read here.
[A commentary in The Firm by criminal lawyer Nicholas Scullion can be read here.]
The Pan Am 103 debacle has taken a significant new twist as the entire criminal justice framework came under fire for a sustained and coordinated perversion of the course of justice in the handling of the Pan Am 103 investigation, trial and subsequent political cover up.
An extraordinary series of claims have been made today by the Committee of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, who lodged a series of complaints with Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill last month.
The Minister's perceived failure to address the issues have led to the group going public with their concerns.
Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd (...) is accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice by submitting false information to the Zeist trial court. [RB: Lord Boyd is accused of communicating to the Zeist Court information which members of the prosecution team, whom he consulted, knew to be false. He may himself have been an unwitting conduit of false information.]
Members of the prosecution team are accused by the group of presenting a scenario to the trail court "which was known to be false".
The group accuse Dumfries and Galloway Police of concealing a witness statement in relation to an airside break-in at Heathrow airport earlier on 21 December 1988.
"It is submitted that the concealment of this witness statement, which was or ought to have been known to Dumfries and Galloway Police and the Crown Office to be of the highest possible significance to the defence, constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice," the group said.
The letter outlining the grounds include further allegations claiming witness statements given at the Zeist trial were false, and that individuals associated with the investigation, in particular a named police officer, failed to make relevant inquiries and attempted to pervert the course of justice.
The letter represents a significant change of tactic for the Justice for Megrahi group, moving from challenging the soundness of the conviction against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, to naming those they believe may be responsible for independent criminal acts of their own, resulting in the conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi.
In 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place.
"You above all will realise the seriousness of these allegations which strike at the very heart of the Lockerbie investigation past and present," the group said in their letter to MacAskill.
"Effectively, we are complaining about the actions of Crown Office officials, the prosecution and investigating authorities including the police, and certain other agencies and individuals. Given the controversy surrounding this whole affair we request that you give serious thought to the independence of any investigating authority you appoint. As a group we believe that you should appoint someone outwith Scotland who has no previous direct or indirect association with Lockerbie or its ramifications."
The group had pledged to "keep these matters private and confidential for a period of thirty days," and have now publicised their concerns following the receipt of a response from Neil Rennick, the Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate, on Mr MacAskill's behalf.
The response did not propose the appointment of an internationally independent investigator as proposed by the group.
"It is not the function of the Scottish Government to investigate allegations that criminal offences have been committed. This is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate who operates independently of the Scottish Government in such matters and your letter acknowledges the importance of this separation of duties within Scotland’s justice system," Mr Rennick said.
The Justice for Megrahi group said the response "distorts and utterly misrepresents our request to you."
"We did not request that you as Justice Secretary, or any other member of the executive, investigate our allegations," the group said.
"As Secretary for Justice you have a clear duty to make sure that our justice system is administered in a way that instils public confidence in that system. We will leave it to you to decide if, by failing to facilitate a full and independent enquiry into our allegations, you have abrogated that responsibility to the people of Scotland."
The Pan Am 103 investigation has previously been challenged on the basis of the perceived politicisation of the judicial process, as well as the emergence of testimony claiming fabrication of evidence, non disclosure of material evidence to the defence, bribery of witnesses, tampering of evidence and manipuation of the trial process by government intelligence operatives.
In 2005 UN observer Hans Koechler said "the falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services, etc. are criminal offences in any country."
Former Crown Agent Norman MacFadyen was reported to the police in 2009 in relation to allegations of evidence tampering, but no charges were ever brought.
The group's letter to MacAskill can be read here.
[A commentary in The Firm by criminal lawyer Nicholas Scullion can be read here.]
Monday, 22 October 2012
Lockerbie, double jeopardy and Crown Office spin?
This is the heading over an item posted today on Paul McConville’s excellent blog Random Thoughts Re Scots Law. The first two and the last three paragraphs read as follows:
“Yesterday’s Scotland on Sunday ran a piece about the continuing Crown Office investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. I have some thoughts to offer on the article.
“I should say that I am firmly in the camp, having read the judgements in the trial and the appeal, and having considered the evidence and arguments published as time has passed, including the concerns of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that Mr al-Megrahi was wrongfully convicted. (...)
“What would happen if, during these inquiries, the Crown discovered compelling evidence that Mr al-Megrahi had been wrongly convicted?
“A cynic might suggest that it would not see the light of day. However, I am sure that justice would be done, and the evidence revealed, even if it shook the foundations of the guilty verdict which the Scottish Government has doggedly sought to defend since it was delivered.
“The Justice For Megrahi campaign deserves huge credit for its continuing efforts, as does the lawyer, Professor Tony Kelly, who so ably took on Mr al-Megrahi’s case for the second appeal. Let’s hope that there is not a need for a Justice for Fhimah campaign at some point in the future.”
The intervening thirty-five paragraphs should be read by all who have a genuine concern for the Scottish criminal justice system and its performance in relation to the Lockerbie case. I suspect that this does not include the Crown Office.
“Yesterday’s Scotland on Sunday ran a piece about the continuing Crown Office investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. I have some thoughts to offer on the article.
“I should say that I am firmly in the camp, having read the judgements in the trial and the appeal, and having considered the evidence and arguments published as time has passed, including the concerns of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, that Mr al-Megrahi was wrongfully convicted. (...)
“What would happen if, during these inquiries, the Crown discovered compelling evidence that Mr al-Megrahi had been wrongly convicted?
“A cynic might suggest that it would not see the light of day. However, I am sure that justice would be done, and the evidence revealed, even if it shook the foundations of the guilty verdict which the Scottish Government has doggedly sought to defend since it was delivered.
“The Justice For Megrahi campaign deserves huge credit for its continuing efforts, as does the lawyer, Professor Tony Kelly, who so ably took on Mr al-Megrahi’s case for the second appeal. Let’s hope that there is not a need for a Justice for Fhimah campaign at some point in the future.”
The intervening thirty-five paragraphs should be read by all who have a genuine concern for the Scottish criminal justice system and its performance in relation to the Lockerbie case. I suspect that this does not include the Crown Office.
New investigation into Fhimah, the man cleared of Lockerbie bombing
[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times. It reads in part:]
The man acquitted of the Lockerbie bombing is again part of an investigation by Scottish prosecutors.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah is the subject of Crown Office inquiries into the events that led to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988 and remains the biggest single act of terrorism in Britain.
Mr Fhimah was acquitted in 2001 by Lord Sutherland, the presiding judge at his trial at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, but could face a new prosecution after changes to the law on double jeopardy.
It is understood that a Maltese court has heard fresh testimony from witnesses called as part of the continuing Crown investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. (...)
Although the Crown Office will not confirm who is part of the investigation, the actions of Mr Fhimah are thought to be included.
Before the fresh testimonies were heard, a formal request was sent by the Crown Office to Malta, asking for judicial assistance. The details have not been released but a “summary of facts” from the Crown Office names Mr Fhimah.
It says: “The circumstances giving rise to this request are that it is alleged that the said Megrahi and Fhimah, acting in concert with others and with the Libyan intelligence services ... caused an improvised explosive device to be placed among clothing and an umbrella, which had been purchased in Malta, within a suitcase which had been tagged so as to enable it to be carried on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt on December 21, 1988.”
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state-sponsored terrorism and did not act alone. It would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”
Calls for a public inquiry into the bombing continued last month after “serious formal allegations” relating to the conduct of the investigation were laid before the Justice Secretary.
The Scottish parliament’s Justice Committee once again considered the long-running petition by the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) group, calling for an independent inquiry into al-Megrahi’s conviction in 2001.
In a submission to the committee, JFM said that “serious question marks” had been raised over forensic evidence. “It would now appear that expert evidence provided to the court was deeply flawed,” it said.
[Examples of just how deeply flawed the investigation and prosecution were will be illustrated at tomorrow’s media conference.]
The man acquitted of the Lockerbie bombing is again part of an investigation by Scottish prosecutors.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah is the subject of Crown Office inquiries into the events that led to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people in 1988 and remains the biggest single act of terrorism in Britain.
Mr Fhimah was acquitted in 2001 by Lord Sutherland, the presiding judge at his trial at Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, but could face a new prosecution after changes to the law on double jeopardy.
It is understood that a Maltese court has heard fresh testimony from witnesses called as part of the continuing Crown investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. (...)
Although the Crown Office will not confirm who is part of the investigation, the actions of Mr Fhimah are thought to be included.
Before the fresh testimonies were heard, a formal request was sent by the Crown Office to Malta, asking for judicial assistance. The details have not been released but a “summary of facts” from the Crown Office names Mr Fhimah.
It says: “The circumstances giving rise to this request are that it is alleged that the said Megrahi and Fhimah, acting in concert with others and with the Libyan intelligence services ... caused an improvised explosive device to be placed among clothing and an umbrella, which had been purchased in Malta, within a suitcase which had been tagged so as to enable it to be carried on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt on December 21, 1988.”
A spokesman for the Crown Office said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state-sponsored terrorism and did not act alone. It would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”
Calls for a public inquiry into the bombing continued last month after “serious formal allegations” relating to the conduct of the investigation were laid before the Justice Secretary.
The Scottish parliament’s Justice Committee once again considered the long-running petition by the Justice for Megrahi (JFM) group, calling for an independent inquiry into al-Megrahi’s conviction in 2001.
In a submission to the committee, JFM said that “serious question marks” had been raised over forensic evidence. “It would now appear that expert evidence provided to the court was deeply flawed,” it said.
[Examples of just how deeply flawed the investigation and prosecution were will be illustrated at tomorrow’s media conference.]
Sunday, 21 October 2012
PanAm cash duo tried for treason
[This is the headline over a report in today’s Scottish edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]
However, it is now alleged that former Secretary General Mohammed al-Zwai and one time Foreign Minister Abdulati al-Obeidi should not have approved the compensation as the new administration insists Libya was not responsible.
Prosecutors also claim the two men should not have negotiated the deal in return for the lifting of the “unjust” sanctions and insist they should have been demanding compensation instead.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the bombing, said Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi were “two of the good people” under the then Libyan regime.
“I know both men and they would have inevitably been required to do what their boss told them, so they wouldn’t have had any choice,” he added. “I liked them both, they were two people we found it easy to talk to. Gaddafi wanted to get rid of the sanctions by paying the compensation.
“The accusers are still pursuing the intent of pinning as much blame as possible on the late Gaddafi’s regime. Any supposedly objective process of justice in Libya at the moment is very suspect.”
Frank Duggan, the President of the Victims of Pan Am 103 support group, added: “I don’t know why they want to resurrect the whole thing. And I don’t understand why they are saying the money shouldn’t have been paid out. The money was – as we say in the US – ‘chump change’, nothing to Gaddafi’s family.”
Gaddafi agreed to pay £6.25million to the families of each victim after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty of the attack, which saw Pan Am Flight 103 blow up over the town of Lockerbie killing 270 people.
Robert Black, Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, who has taken a keen interest in the case, described the recent revelations as “very odd”.
He said: “If this is what the current regime are charging these men with, it seems to indicate that they don’t believe that this money was in fact due.
“The view of the early new Libyan regime was that Gaddafi was responsible for everything, but now they seem to be saying, ‘Oh well, maybe not’.” (...)
Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi pleaded not guilty but were denied bail. Speaking after the hearing, their defence lawyer said: “We hope that the trial will be a fair one.”
Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing case, legal experts on both sides of the Atlantic say even if the payments were deemed illegal in Libyan law the cash could not be reclaimed.
American lawyer James Kreidles [RB: presumably this should read “James Kreindler”] dismissed the court proceedings as having “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the victims’ families.
He added: “It was an appropriate settlement. It was good for the families, good for the US and good for Libya.” [RB: it was also good for Kreindler & Kreindler whose contingency fees for representing the families amounted to many, many millions of dollars.]
The new Libyan regime has challenged Colonel Gaddafi’s decision to compensate the families of the Lockerbie bombing, claiming the £1.7billion was paid illegally.
Two officials who worked under the former leader have appeared in court accused of squandering public money and treason for their part in the deal.
The Libyans agreed to pay the reparations and accept responsibility for the 1988 attack in exchange for the lifting of United Nation sanctions. [RB: The full text of the Libyan regime’s “acceptance of responsibility” can be read in this letter.]
However, it is now alleged that former Secretary General Mohammed al-Zwai and one time Foreign Minister Abdulati al-Obeidi should not have approved the compensation as the new administration insists Libya was not responsible.
Prosecutors also claim the two men should not have negotiated the deal in return for the lifting of the “unjust” sanctions and insist they should have been demanding compensation instead.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, was killed in the bombing, said Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi were “two of the good people” under the then Libyan regime.
“I know both men and they would have inevitably been required to do what their boss told them, so they wouldn’t have had any choice,” he added. “I liked them both, they were two people we found it easy to talk to. Gaddafi wanted to get rid of the sanctions by paying the compensation.
“The accusers are still pursuing the intent of pinning as much blame as possible on the late Gaddafi’s regime. Any supposedly objective process of justice in Libya at the moment is very suspect.”
Frank Duggan, the President of the Victims of Pan Am 103 support group, added: “I don’t know why they want to resurrect the whole thing. And I don’t understand why they are saying the money shouldn’t have been paid out. The money was – as we say in the US – ‘chump change’, nothing to Gaddafi’s family.”
Gaddafi agreed to pay £6.25million to the families of each victim after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was found guilty of the attack, which saw Pan Am Flight 103 blow up over the town of Lockerbie killing 270 people.
Robert Black, Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, who has taken a keen interest in the case, described the recent revelations as “very odd”.
He said: “If this is what the current regime are charging these men with, it seems to indicate that they don’t believe that this money was in fact due.
“The view of the early new Libyan regime was that Gaddafi was responsible for everything, but now they seem to be saying, ‘Oh well, maybe not’.” (...)
Mr al-Zwai and Mr al-Obeidi pleaded not guilty but were denied bail. Speaking after the hearing, their defence lawyer said: “We hope that the trial will be a fair one.”
Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing case, legal experts on both sides of the Atlantic say even if the payments were deemed illegal in Libyan law the cash could not be reclaimed.
American lawyer James Kreidles [RB: presumably this should read “James Kreindler”] dismissed the court proceedings as having “absolutely no effect whatsoever” on the victims’ families.
He added: “It was an appropriate settlement. It was good for the families, good for the US and good for Libya.” [RB: it was also good for Kreindler & Kreindler whose contingency fees for representing the families amounted to many, many millions of dollars.]
Lockerbie bombing: Prosecutors seek acquitted Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah
[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Prosecutors investigating the Lockerbie bombing are examining evidence that could implicate Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan acquitted of the atrocity, documents obtained by Scotland on Sunday suggest.
The Crown Office has always maintained that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 bombing, did not act alone. Last month, prosecutors requested new hearings to be held in private in Malta. Scotland on Sunday understands the basis of those hearings related to the actions of Megrahi, Fhimah and others in the Libyan intelligence services.
The investigation is focused on the explosive package placed on Air Malta flight KM180, which was transferred on to Pan Am flight 103, and exploded above Lockerbie, killing 270 people.
Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, stood trial alongside Megrahi at Camp Zeist. He was acquitted in 2001 by the presiding judge, Lord Sutherland, and returned home to a hero’s welcome in Libya. He could face a new prosecution under double jeopardy legislation passed by the Scottish Government last year.
Yesterday the Crown Office refused to say whether Fhimah is one of the people being looked at by the cold case unit as a double jeopardy candidate.
However, documents sent along with a “commission rogatoire” – a formal request for judicial assistance – by the Crown Office to officials in Malta, reveal he is still in their sights. The Crown Office declined to disclose details of the letter, following a Freedom of Information request. However, it did include a “summary of facts”.
In it the Crown said: “The circumstances giving rise to this request are that it is alleged that the said Megrahi and Fhimah, acting in concert with others and with the Libyan intelligence services... caused an improvised explosive device to be placed among clothing and an umbrella, which had been purchased in Malta, within a suitcase which had been tagged so as to enable it to be carried on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt on 21 December, 1988.”
A Crown Office spokesman said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state sponsored terrorism and did not act alone. It would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”
[Today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times contains a report based on the Scotland on Sunday article.]
Prosecutors investigating the Lockerbie bombing are examining evidence that could implicate Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan acquitted of the atrocity, documents obtained by Scotland on Sunday suggest.
The Crown Office has always maintained that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 bombing, did not act alone. Last month, prosecutors requested new hearings to be held in private in Malta. Scotland on Sunday understands the basis of those hearings related to the actions of Megrahi, Fhimah and others in the Libyan intelligence services.
The investigation is focused on the explosive package placed on Air Malta flight KM180, which was transferred on to Pan Am flight 103, and exploded above Lockerbie, killing 270 people.
Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, stood trial alongside Megrahi at Camp Zeist. He was acquitted in 2001 by the presiding judge, Lord Sutherland, and returned home to a hero’s welcome in Libya. He could face a new prosecution under double jeopardy legislation passed by the Scottish Government last year.
Yesterday the Crown Office refused to say whether Fhimah is one of the people being looked at by the cold case unit as a double jeopardy candidate.
However, documents sent along with a “commission rogatoire” – a formal request for judicial assistance – by the Crown Office to officials in Malta, reveal he is still in their sights. The Crown Office declined to disclose details of the letter, following a Freedom of Information request. However, it did include a “summary of facts”.
In it the Crown said: “The circumstances giving rise to this request are that it is alleged that the said Megrahi and Fhimah, acting in concert with others and with the Libyan intelligence services... caused an improvised explosive device to be placed among clothing and an umbrella, which had been purchased in Malta, within a suitcase which had been tagged so as to enable it to be carried on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt on 21 December, 1988.”
A Crown Office spokesman said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state sponsored terrorism and did not act alone. It would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”
[Today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times contains a report based on the Scotland on Sunday article.]
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Justice for Megrahi media conference on 23 October
MEDIA CONFERENCE
11.45 am Tuesday 23 October 2012: Macdonald Holyrood Hotel, 81 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AU
“Justice for Megrahi (JFM) Committee to give details of allegations made to the Justice Secretary in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah.”
BACKGROUND TO MEDIA CONFERENCE
On 13 September, the Justice for Megrahi Committee (JFM) wrote to Kenny MacAskill, Secretary for Justice, formally lodging complaints alleging criminal wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988. The Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate responded.
Given the unsatisfactory nature of this response, JFM has written to Mr MacAskill outlining their concerns which include his perceived failure to act independently and appropriately in handling the complaints.
To assist public understanding of the issues under dispute, the JFM committee will hold a media conference as above and will make a summary of the allegations available together with details of the related correspondence.
EVENTS
11.45 hrs Media packs available with documentation related to allegations and complaints.
12.00 hrs Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black, Robert Forrester, Father Pat Keegans, all members of the JFM committee, and Jock M W Thomson QC will outline the implications of the allegations and complaints.
12.30 hrs Above panel available for interview/photographs.
11.45 am Tuesday 23 October 2012: Macdonald Holyrood Hotel, 81 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AU
“Justice for Megrahi (JFM) Committee to give details of allegations made to the Justice Secretary in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah.”
BACKGROUND TO MEDIA CONFERENCE
On 13 September, the Justice for Megrahi Committee (JFM) wrote to Kenny MacAskill, Secretary for Justice, formally lodging complaints alleging criminal wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988. The Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate responded.
Given the unsatisfactory nature of this response, JFM has written to Mr MacAskill outlining their concerns which include his perceived failure to act independently and appropriately in handling the complaints.
To assist public understanding of the issues under dispute, the JFM committee will hold a media conference as above and will make a summary of the allegations available together with details of the related correspondence.
EVENTS
11.45 hrs Media packs available with documentation related to allegations and complaints.
12.00 hrs Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black, Robert Forrester, Father Pat Keegans, all members of the JFM committee, and Jock M W Thomson QC will outline the implications of the allegations and complaints.
12.30 hrs Above panel available for interview/photographs.
US Attorney General fulminates over McKinnon and Megrahi
[The following are excerpts from a report in today’s edition of the The Daily Telegraph:]
America is preparing formally to complain to Britain over Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision to block the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon (...)
A strongly-worded letter from US attorney general Eric Holder was due to be delivered to Mrs May’s office at the Home Office last night.
The row over Mr McKinnon has turned into the biggest cooling in trans-Atlantic relations since Lockerbie bomber was released three years ago.
Senior US officials are now understood to describe the relationship between the Obama administration and Mrs May as “finished”.
Mr Holder is understood to feel “completely screwed” by Mrs May’s decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon because of doctors’ fears that he might kill himself, complaining that the US has wasted million so pounds on legal fees for the case.
The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Holder has refused to return Mrs May’s phone calls since her surprise announcement on Tuesday.
The depth of ill-feeling could jeopardise co-operation with the US over security because Mrs May leads for the UK in talks with Washington.
A senior administration official said: “This was a cheap political trick by Theresa May to further her political career.
“Mrs May told us in July that there were no legal or medical grounds to block his extradition, and then she changed her mind without having the decency to inform us.”
The official said the row had comparisons with row over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi in 2009.
The source said: “After all the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya on humanitarian grounds, this decision on Gary McKinnon does not inspire confidence that the British government is serious about dealing with serious security issues.” (...)
American officials were surprised by the sudden change in stance because Mrs May told Mr Holder in a letter on July 12 there were no legal or medical grounds to block McKinnon’s extradition to the US.
According to former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson, Mrs May admitted to Mr Holder in July there were also “ramifications for national security” if the extradition was blocked.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We do not routinely comment on Ministerial correspondence.”
[Earlier instances of Attorney General Holder’s involvement in the Megrahi case can be found here.]
America is preparing formally to complain to Britain over Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision to block the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon (...)
A strongly-worded letter from US attorney general Eric Holder was due to be delivered to Mrs May’s office at the Home Office last night.
The row over Mr McKinnon has turned into the biggest cooling in trans-Atlantic relations since Lockerbie bomber was released three years ago.
Senior US officials are now understood to describe the relationship between the Obama administration and Mrs May as “finished”.
Mr Holder is understood to feel “completely screwed” by Mrs May’s decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon because of doctors’ fears that he might kill himself, complaining that the US has wasted million so pounds on legal fees for the case.
The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Holder has refused to return Mrs May’s phone calls since her surprise announcement on Tuesday.
The depth of ill-feeling could jeopardise co-operation with the US over security because Mrs May leads for the UK in talks with Washington.
A senior administration official said: “This was a cheap political trick by Theresa May to further her political career.
“Mrs May told us in July that there were no legal or medical grounds to block his extradition, and then she changed her mind without having the decency to inform us.”
The official said the row had comparisons with row over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi in 2009.
The source said: “After all the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya on humanitarian grounds, this decision on Gary McKinnon does not inspire confidence that the British government is serious about dealing with serious security issues.” (...)
American officials were surprised by the sudden change in stance because Mrs May told Mr Holder in a letter on July 12 there were no legal or medical grounds to block McKinnon’s extradition to the US.
According to former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson, Mrs May admitted to Mr Holder in July there were also “ramifications for national security” if the extradition was blocked.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We do not routinely comment on Ministerial correspondence.”
[Earlier instances of Attorney General Holder’s involvement in the Megrahi case can be found here.]
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Gaddafi-era officials kept in jail over Lockerbie case
[This is the heading over a translated transcript on the Link TV website of an item broadcast on the BBC Arabic service. It reads as follows:]
Presenter, Male #1
Two former Libyan regime officials, Mohammed al-Zwai and Abdulati al-Obeidi, appeared before the Tripoli appeals court where they are being tried on charges of squandering public money in the Lockerbie case, and of treason. The court ordered them to remain in prison pending the outcome of the case, and rejected the defense's request to release them on bail.
Reporter, Male #2
Strict security measures were enforced near the court of appeals in the Libyan capital Tripoli as two former officials from the era of the late leader Muammar Gaddafi, speaker of parliament Mohammed al-Zwai and foreign minister Abdulati al-Obeidi, arrived to appear before the court. They are charged with squandering public funds by granting compensations to the families of the victims in the case of the bombing of Pan American [flight 103] over the Scottish city of Lockerbie, which exceeded USD 2.7 billion, and for treason by betraying the state's trust to negotiate on its behalf abroad.
Reporter, Male #2
During the session, the two defendants denied the accusations directed against them by the judge who refused to release them and ordered to keep them in prison pending the outcome of the case. As soon the session ended, the defense lawyer expressed satisfaction with the course of the trial, despite the rejection of his request to release his clients on bail.
Guest, Male #3
The court granted our requests despite rejecting the request for their release but this is its jurisdiction. I am satisfied because the court heard us, and heard the justifications for the release request, and the justifications to hear the defense witnesses. We hope that the trial will be a fair one.
Reporter, Male #2
The Libyan street seemed to be following this case with great interest, placing their confidence in the Libyan judiciary.
Guest, Male #4
The Libyan judiciary is known for being fair, and it has been in existence for a long time, and we are very confident in the Libyan judiciary. As for the people who are now being tried, the law is the decider. If the law finds them guilty, they will bear the consequences of their acts. And if the law finds them innocent, they are just Libyan citizens, just like all Libyans.
Guest, Male #5
Everything is under the command of the Libyan authorities and the Libyan judiciary, and I am certain that at the end it will be fair, and it will not be unjust again.
Reporter, Male #2
According to the documents of the case against the two defendants, they are not authorized to negotiate all of the provisions of the agreement and its conditions, and they will be tried in accordance with the Economic Crimes Law and the Penal Code.
Presenter, Male #1
Two former Libyan regime officials, Mohammed al-Zwai and Abdulati al-Obeidi, appeared before the Tripoli appeals court where they are being tried on charges of squandering public money in the Lockerbie case, and of treason. The court ordered them to remain in prison pending the outcome of the case, and rejected the defense's request to release them on bail.
Reporter, Male #2
Strict security measures were enforced near the court of appeals in the Libyan capital Tripoli as two former officials from the era of the late leader Muammar Gaddafi, speaker of parliament Mohammed al-Zwai and foreign minister Abdulati al-Obeidi, arrived to appear before the court. They are charged with squandering public funds by granting compensations to the families of the victims in the case of the bombing of Pan American [flight 103] over the Scottish city of Lockerbie, which exceeded USD 2.7 billion, and for treason by betraying the state's trust to negotiate on its behalf abroad.
Reporter, Male #2
During the session, the two defendants denied the accusations directed against them by the judge who refused to release them and ordered to keep them in prison pending the outcome of the case. As soon the session ended, the defense lawyer expressed satisfaction with the course of the trial, despite the rejection of his request to release his clients on bail.
Guest, Male #3
The court granted our requests despite rejecting the request for their release but this is its jurisdiction. I am satisfied because the court heard us, and heard the justifications for the release request, and the justifications to hear the defense witnesses. We hope that the trial will be a fair one.
Reporter, Male #2
The Libyan street seemed to be following this case with great interest, placing their confidence in the Libyan judiciary.
Guest, Male #4
The Libyan judiciary is known for being fair, and it has been in existence for a long time, and we are very confident in the Libyan judiciary. As for the people who are now being tried, the law is the decider. If the law finds them guilty, they will bear the consequences of their acts. And if the law finds them innocent, they are just Libyan citizens, just like all Libyans.
Guest, Male #5
Everything is under the command of the Libyan authorities and the Libyan judiciary, and I am certain that at the end it will be fair, and it will not be unjust again.
Reporter, Male #2
According to the documents of the case against the two defendants, they are not authorized to negotiate all of the provisions of the agreement and its conditions, and they will be tried in accordance with the Economic Crimes Law and the Penal Code.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Politicians linked to Lockerbie case return to court
[This is the headline over a report dated 15 October on the Zapaday website. It reads as follows:]
The court case resumes for two former government officials working for the late Moammer Gaddafi's regime. They are accused of squandering public money by granting a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the families of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing victims.
The accused, Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, allegedly brokered this compensation deal in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions and US trade sanctions on Libya. In addition, they requested that Libya be removed from a list of states known for sponsoring terrorism.
These two former senior officials are charged with treason for engaging in negotiations with the lawyers of the victims' families, with the full knowledge that lawyers are not authorised by the US administration to negotiate the conditions of trade sanctions and terrorism suspects.
The presiding judge has argued that the compensation deal was a waste of public money since there was no guarantee that the conditions would be met, nor that the charges for the bombing would be dropped. Observers have registered surprise at the wording of the charges. Given that Libya's central government is still weak after the ousting of Gaddafi, it has been argued that legal proceedings at the moment do not meet international standards.
However, it is evident that Libya's new rulers are keen to show citizens that those who helped Gaddafi cling to power shall be held accountable. Both Saif Al-Islam, Gaddafi's son and Abdullah Al- Senussi, Libya's former chief spy are awaiting trial.
[An earlier post on this blog relating to the trial of Messrs Zwai and Obeidi can be read here.]
The court case resumes for two former government officials working for the late Moammer Gaddafi's regime. They are accused of squandering public money by granting a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the families of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing victims.
The accused, Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, allegedly brokered this compensation deal in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions and US trade sanctions on Libya. In addition, they requested that Libya be removed from a list of states known for sponsoring terrorism.
These two former senior officials are charged with treason for engaging in negotiations with the lawyers of the victims' families, with the full knowledge that lawyers are not authorised by the US administration to negotiate the conditions of trade sanctions and terrorism suspects.
The presiding judge has argued that the compensation deal was a waste of public money since there was no guarantee that the conditions would be met, nor that the charges for the bombing would be dropped. Observers have registered surprise at the wording of the charges. Given that Libya's central government is still weak after the ousting of Gaddafi, it has been argued that legal proceedings at the moment do not meet international standards.
However, it is evident that Libya's new rulers are keen to show citizens that those who helped Gaddafi cling to power shall be held accountable. Both Saif Al-Islam, Gaddafi's son and Abdullah Al- Senussi, Libya's former chief spy are awaiting trial.
[An earlier post on this blog relating to the trial of Messrs Zwai and Obeidi can be read here.]
Monday, 15 October 2012
The Gauci brothers and payment
[Five years ago today, an item in the following terms was posted on this blog under the heading Now there’s a surprise!:]
Lucy Adams in The Herald of 15 October has a story to the effect that Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent who led the US joint task force on Lockerbie (and author of the book Scotbom: Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0875864495) remains of the view that Megrahi was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and regrets only that the will is lacking to bring other more senior Libyans to trial.
He confirms that there were discussions about about monetary payments to the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, but is unable to say whether any money was in fact paid over.
See "Ex-FBI agent: no will to keep up Lockerbie investigation".
[What Mr Marquise is quoted as saying in the report in The Herald is this:]
He said he was unaware of any financial discussions between the CIA and the Gaucis but confirmed the US government ran a rewards programme for information at the time. "I know that when PanAm 103 went down, the State Department had a new programme called rewards for justice," he said.
It was well advertised in the Middle East, but the Scottish legal system has no mechanisms whatsoever for paying people and no comparative witness protection programme.
"We talked about it and we talked about the Gaucis and whether they needed to be protected," said Mr Marquise. "I think someone spoke to them in 1991 and said if you feel threatened we will relocate you, but as far as I am aware no-one offered them millions of dollars. Tony Gauci told someone that Australia would be the only place he might like to go, but he was happy in Malta and did not want to leave his pigeons so the subject was dropped. Instead extra security, including a panic button, was added to his shop."
[This should be compared with what we now know from Inspector Harry Bell’s diary of his dealings with the Gauci brothers, Tony and Paul. The following is from a report in the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
A document seen by the Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review Commission which reviewed the Lockerbie trial proceedings shows that star witness Tony Gauci had shown an interest in receiving money. (...)
The document was a memorandum dated February 21, 1991, titled Security of Witness Anthony Gauci, Malta, that consisted of a report sent by investigator Harry Bell to Supt Gilchrist just after Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi from a photo-spread six days earlier.
The memorandum was never disclosed by the prosecution during the trial.
Mr Bell discusses the possibility of Mr Gauci’s inclusion in a witness protection programme. The final paragraph, however, makes reference to a different matter: “During recent meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money. It would appear that he is aware of the US reward monies which have been reported in the press.” (...)
But the review commission also had access to a confidential report dated June 10, 1999 by British police officers drawing up an assessment for the possible inclusion of Tony Gauci in a witness protection programme administered by Strathclyde Police.
In the report Mr Gauci is described as being “somewhat frustrated that he will not be compensated in any financial way for his contribution to the case”.
Mr Gauci is described in the report as a “humble man who leads a very simple life which is firmly built on a strong sense of honesty and decency”.
But the officers also interviewed Mr Gauci’s brother Paul, in connection with his inclusion in the programme.
The following passage in the report details their conclusions in this respect: “It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have... Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
The report makes it clear that until then the Gaucis had not received any money.
But the commission established that some time after the conclusion of Mr Megrahi’s appeal, Tony and Paul Gauci were each paid sums of money under the Rewards or Justice programme administered by the US State Department.
Of particular note is an entry in Mr Bell’s diary for September 28, 1989: “He (Agent Murray of the FBI) had authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci and relocation is available. Murray states that he could arrange $10,000 immediately.”
When interviewed by the commission, Mr Bell was asked if Agent Murray had ever met Mr Gauci, to which he replied “I cannot say that he did not do so”.
However, the commission also noted that FBI Agent Hosinski had met with Mr Gauci alone on October 2, 1989 but Mr Bell said he would “seriously doubt that any offer of money was made to Tony during that meeting”.
Lucy Adams in The Herald of 15 October has a story to the effect that Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent who led the US joint task force on Lockerbie (and author of the book Scotbom: Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0875864495) remains of the view that Megrahi was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and regrets only that the will is lacking to bring other more senior Libyans to trial.
He confirms that there were discussions about about monetary payments to the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, but is unable to say whether any money was in fact paid over.
See "Ex-FBI agent: no will to keep up Lockerbie investigation".
[What Mr Marquise is quoted as saying in the report in The Herald is this:]
He said he was unaware of any financial discussions between the CIA and the Gaucis but confirmed the US government ran a rewards programme for information at the time. "I know that when PanAm 103 went down, the State Department had a new programme called rewards for justice," he said.
It was well advertised in the Middle East, but the Scottish legal system has no mechanisms whatsoever for paying people and no comparative witness protection programme.
"We talked about it and we talked about the Gaucis and whether they needed to be protected," said Mr Marquise. "I think someone spoke to them in 1991 and said if you feel threatened we will relocate you, but as far as I am aware no-one offered them millions of dollars. Tony Gauci told someone that Australia would be the only place he might like to go, but he was happy in Malta and did not want to leave his pigeons so the subject was dropped. Instead extra security, including a panic button, was added to his shop."
[This should be compared with what we now know from Inspector Harry Bell’s diary of his dealings with the Gauci brothers, Tony and Paul. The following is from a report in the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
A document seen by the Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review Commission which reviewed the Lockerbie trial proceedings shows that star witness Tony Gauci had shown an interest in receiving money. (...)
The document was a memorandum dated February 21, 1991, titled Security of Witness Anthony Gauci, Malta, that consisted of a report sent by investigator Harry Bell to Supt Gilchrist just after Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi from a photo-spread six days earlier.
The memorandum was never disclosed by the prosecution during the trial.
Mr Bell discusses the possibility of Mr Gauci’s inclusion in a witness protection programme. The final paragraph, however, makes reference to a different matter: “During recent meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money. It would appear that he is aware of the US reward monies which have been reported in the press.” (...)
But the review commission also had access to a confidential report dated June 10, 1999 by British police officers drawing up an assessment for the possible inclusion of Tony Gauci in a witness protection programme administered by Strathclyde Police.
In the report Mr Gauci is described as being “somewhat frustrated that he will not be compensated in any financial way for his contribution to the case”.
Mr Gauci is described in the report as a “humble man who leads a very simple life which is firmly built on a strong sense of honesty and decency”.
But the officers also interviewed Mr Gauci’s brother Paul, in connection with his inclusion in the programme.
The following passage in the report details their conclusions in this respect: “It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have... Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
The report makes it clear that until then the Gaucis had not received any money.
But the commission established that some time after the conclusion of Mr Megrahi’s appeal, Tony and Paul Gauci were each paid sums of money under the Rewards or Justice programme administered by the US State Department.
Of particular note is an entry in Mr Bell’s diary for September 28, 1989: “He (Agent Murray of the FBI) had authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci and relocation is available. Murray states that he could arrange $10,000 immediately.”
When interviewed by the commission, Mr Bell was asked if Agent Murray had ever met Mr Gauci, to which he replied “I cannot say that he did not do so”.
However, the commission also noted that FBI Agent Hosinski had met with Mr Gauci alone on October 2, 1989 but Mr Bell said he would “seriously doubt that any offer of money was made to Tony during that meeting”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)