The claims that 'prove' the Lockerbie case fiasco

[This is the headline over a long article by Greg Christison in today’s edition of the Sunday Express.  It reads in part:]

Eight damning claims that have sparked a bitter row within Scotland’s legal hierarchy over the Lockerbie investigation can be exclusively revealed today.

Campaign group Justice for Megrahi (JfM) has opened a 39-page dossier containing accusations that, if proved, would rock governments on both sides of the Atlantic.

JfM, which has the support of leading lawyers, claims that Crown Office officials and police officers attempted to pervert the course of justice during the investigation and trial following the 1988 disaster.

Our investigation comes just days after Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, launched a scathing attack on “conspiracy theorists”, whose attacks were “defamatory” and “without foundation”.

His comments have further angered campaigners, already infuriated that Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill forwarded their complaints to the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary – the very organisations accused of wrongdoing.

It is alleged the authorities deliberately misled judges during the 36-week hearing at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2000 in an attempt to frame Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi and his co-accused Lamin Khalifah Fhimah.

The group believes that vital evidence suggesting the bomb was planted at Heathrow Airport rather than in Malta, as found by the court, was intentionally overlooked in order to achieve a conviction against the two Libyans.

Backed by evidence from a “wide variety of sources”, the dossier also includes claims that prosecutors passed on false information to the court and key statements were deliberately “buried”.

Prominent Scots lawyers Ian Hamilton and Robert Black both support the claims and insist an independent inquiry must be held into the Lockerbie case.

Retired QC Mr Hamilton said: “Prima facie, all of the allegations hold water. But put together, there is such a defence case here that I find it incredible that any responsible Crown Office should not welcome an inquiry.

“The whole case against Megrahi was soured and poisoned from the very beginning by the CIA. They wanted a conviction at any cost to satisfy the understandable desire of the victims, many of whom were American citizens, for vengeance. I’m afraid Dumfries and Galloway Police and the Scottish Crown Office caved into this desire.

“It seems to me that this prosecution was conducted with a desire to get a conviction at all costs, even at the cost of justice itself. This has gone on too long and is a blot on Scotland’s reputation for fair trials.”

Reacting furiously to Mr Mulholland’s “defamatory” claims, he added: “It is very, very right for people to criticize an administration of justice which appears to be so corrupt as this one.”

JfM committee member Mr Black, also a [retired] QC and Emeritus Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, said the Scottish legal system had collapsed under a “real determination” for a conviction. (...)

Megrahi, who died in May, is the only man ever convicted of the bombing, which killed 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, in December 1988. Fhimah was acquitted.

He always maintained his innocence and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled there may have been a “miscarriage of justice” in his trial.

On Friday, speaking as the Libyan Government vowed to release all files related to the disaster, Mr Mulholland told a national newspaper [The Times] that he had already appointed “outside counsel” to conduct an independent review of the evidence and found Megrahi’s conviction was sound.

He added: “I am hugely frustrated that there is an unfounded attack on the integrity of the judges involved in the process.”

In response, JfM secretary Robert Forrester hit back: “To say our allegations are defamatory is a joke. Of course they are defamatory – if you point the finger at somebody and say they broke the law you are impuning their reputation.

“There is substantial evidence contained within the documents which supports these allegations and the Crown Office, along with Dumfries and Galloway Police are obliged to investigate.

“Our allegations were met with a prolonged period of silence, it is now interesting to see the Lord Advocate using the media rather than choosing to respond to us directly.”

A Crown Office spokesman said it “would not be appropriate” to name the counsel appointed to review the case.

THE EIGHT ALLEGATIONS

* Crown Office officials attempted to cover up damaging information contained within CIA cables about their star witness Abdul Majid Giaka, who said he saw Megrahi and Fhimah at Luqa Airport with a “suspicious” suitcase. Giaka was later found to be an unreliable witness.

* In the early stages of the inquiry, Dumfries and Galloway officers and Crown Office officials “deliberately ignored” compelling evidence suggesting the bomb was loaded on to Pan Am Flight 103 at Heathrow Airport.

* A statement by Heathrow security guard Raymond Manly, who discovered a break-in 18 hours prior to the departure of Flight 103, was “buried” and not disclosed during the trial.

* The Crown Office presented a false scenario to court concerning the positioning of the Samsonite hardshell suitcase – identical to the one containing the bomb – which was seen in Flight 103’s luggage container at Heathrow, at least an hour before the Frankfurt feeder flight landed.

* A witness for the prosecution, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, intentionally failed to point out a “crucial discrepancy” with a key piece of evidence.

* Dumfries and Galloway Police did not ascertain whether the company which made the MST-13 circuit boards had the capability to create the type of circuit board found at Lockerbie. In 2008, the defence team found the firm could not produce that type of circuit board.

* The Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary failed to disclose critical evidence relating to the scientific analysis of the circuit board.

* Megrahi’s identification by witness Tony Gauci was not handled correctly by the authorities and did not show the expected level of fairness to the accused.

[The precise nature of the criminality alleged is outlined in a 4-page press briefing document produced by Justice for Megrahi.  It can be read here.]

Commemoration of Pan Am 103 at Arlington National Cemetery

[This is the headline over an article published late yesterday on the Consumer Travel Alliance website.  It reads as follows:]

Today, December 21, 2012, is the 24th anniversary of the Pan Am 103 bombing which killed 270 and remains the second worst terrorist attack in history against Americans after 9/11.

A memorial service was held alongside the Flight 103 Cairn at Arlington National Cemetery from 1:30 to 3:00 pm. It featured speeches by the US Attorney General Eric Holder [full text here], FBI Director Robert Mueller [full text here], TSA [Transport Security Administration] Administrator John Pistole [full text here], and Frank Duggan of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103. [RB: I have not been able find Mr Duggan's remarks online. This is probably a blessing.]

On this cold, gray and windy day, America’s top-ranking law enforcement officers paid their respects to those killed in this act of terrorism.

At the same time Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie, an organization of family members of the Pan Am 103 bombing victims, launched a major petition drive demanding the Governments of United States and Libya fulfill their longstanding promises of cooperation in the U.S. criminal investigations of numerous terrorist attacks against Americans by Libyans and bring those responsible to justice. The form to sign the petition is here.

Here is the petition text:

Expressing the disappointment, concern and increasing frustration and anger of the families and friends of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing and all Americans at the failure of the United States to properly investigate the Pan Am 103 bombing (which killed 270 on December 21, 1988 over Lockerbie Scotland and remains the second worst terrorist attack in history against Americans) and other terrorist attacks and the failure of Libya to grant permission for US criminal investigators to gather evidence in Libya or fulfill its promises and obligations to fully cooperate with US criminal investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans, including most recently the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on September 11th, 2012.

Whereas since 1989, hundreds of Pan Am 103 victims’ family members have pursued civil and criminal justice against those responsible for the murder of their loved ones;

Whereas there has been no known progress or criminal investigation developments since the indictments of two Libyan intelligence agents over 20 years ago and the conviction of one over 11 years ago, notwithstanding Libya’s formal promises to the UN in 2003 to fully cooperate with US criminal investigations and comply with numerous international anti-terrorism agreements, and notwithstanding renewed promises by the Libyan Transitional National Council leader in 2011 to provide new evidence and newly available witnesses and suspects in Libya;

Whereas Libya has recently granted permission to the United Kingdom for investigation within Libya by United Kingdom criminal investigators of a London police woman’s murder outside the Libyan embassy;

Whereas Libya has promised repeatedly (in 2003, 2011, 2012 and previously) to cooperate with the United States in the Pan Am 103 investigation;

Whereas the United States provided in 2011 essential support in protecting many of those now in the Libyan government and the Libyan people from being killed in masse by Gaddafi forces;

Whereas the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been claiming for 24 years that this is ‘the largest murder investigation in US history’ but with no visible results since 2000;

Whereas Senussi, former head of Gaddafi’s infamous External Security Organization that sponsored and carried out Gaddafi regime terrorism against the U.S. and other Western nationals and assassinations of exiled Gaddafi opponents, has now been sent back to Libya by Mauritania;

Whereas there is still no indication that the United States has sought to use its many tools of witness protection and relocation, terrorist reward programs, interrogation of Senussi, or former Gaddafi intelligence chief Musa Kusa in Qatar, and has not responded to the United Kingdom critics who claim that the evidence convicting Megrahi was flawed and/or fabricated by the United States DOJ and FBI;

Whereas, Libya is presently criminally prosecuting two former Libyan officials for “waste of public funds” in paying compensation to the families of Pan Am 103 victims; and

Whereas the Government of Libya has made no arrests in the September 2012 terrorist murders of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and has failed to fully cooperated with US criminal investigations:

NOW, therefore, the undersigned hereby petition and request that

(1) The Congress of the United States hold oversight hearings requiring that the FBI and Department of Justice report on the status of the investigation into the Pan Am 103, including by explaining and releasing appropriate records showing—

(A) why since 2000 it has apparently failed to gather any evidence or interview witnesses (including former Justice Minister and former Chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council Mustapha M A Jalil, who has publicly claimed to have proof of Gaddafi and others direct involvement) regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing;

(B) why the US Office of Foreign Assets Control has removed all travel and financial sanctions on Musa Kusa, former Gaddafi intelligence chief, stated by former US CIA Director George Tenet to be responsible for American bloodshed;

(C) why the Department of Justice and Department of State did not seek extradition from Mauritania of Senussi, who was named in United States indictments and convicted by France of the 1989 UTA jumbo jetliner bombing that murdered 170, including 6 U.S. citizens and Bonnie Pew, wife of the US Ambassador to Chad;

(D) why the Department of Justice never sought nor obtained access to Megrahi, the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 mass murder who was imprisoned in the United Kingdom for 9 years, prior to his death in Tripoli in 2012;

(E) why, in over 20 years of what the Department of Justice often claimed was the biggest murder investigation in its history, has never named any of the Pan Am 103 terrorists except two low level Libyan intelligence agents;

(F) what resources the Department of Justice has devoted to the Pan Am 103 bombing criminal investigation and the costs of this investigation especially since 2000; and

(G) what requests or demands the United States made to Libya since 1989 for cooperation in the criminal investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing and what responses if any were received;

(2) That the Government of Libya promptly grant the United States permission to investigate in Libya the Pan Am 103 bombing and other acts of terrorism by Libyan nationals against United States citizens (as it has repeatedly promised but so far failed to do) and permit the US to have a secure location on Libya territory to conduct such investigations.

(3) That unless the US Attorney General and the President of the United States certify to the US Congress by February 21, 2013 that Libya has fully cooperated with the Pan Am 103 bombing and the US consulate attack investigations, that new US and UN sanctions be imposed against Libya for sheltering terrorist murderers of hundreds of Americans and other nationals and for failing to cooperate with US criminal investigations to bring those responsible to justice.

Dated: December 21st, 2012

24 years later, remembering Pan Am flight 103

[This is the headline over an article published today in Huffington Post by former Pan Am station manager, Claudia Helena Oxee:]

December 21, 1988...

The day began as usual with a 2:30 pm general briefing, which consisted of Pan Am's daily flight movements along with a roster of both operational and passenger information that required special attention. My usual assignment was working a gate that operated three simultaneous flights. After the briefing, my colleagues and I went to gate 24/25/26, which was already deluged with queues of anxious holiday travelers.

At approximately 4:00 pm, while in the midst of the hectic workload, two Pan Am VIPs approached the gate and asked me to bring my belongings and follow them. En route to one of their private offices, not a word was spoken until we were all behind closed doors. I was advised that Pan Am's flight 103 had just crashed shortly after takeoff from London's Heathrow airport.

Accurate details had not yet been determined other than that the 747 jumbo jet had touched down at Heathrow at noon (GMT) from Los Angeles and San Francisco. The aircraft was routinely cleaned, catered, fueled and bags were off/unloaded during the standard two hour turnaround time while it was parked on the tarmac. The 747 was guarded by Pan Am's own security company by the name of Alert Security.

Upon arrival at Heathrow, the Frankfurt passengers transited to the awaiting jumbo jet and boarded the aircraft along with the additional passengers who were heading home for the holidays to New York's JFK airport. I was advised that a possible mechanical brought Pan Am's "Clipper Maid of the Seas" down over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland, setting the entire village ablaze. Since I was a mature agent with life experience who was born in Germany and spoke the mother tongue fluently, my assignment, along with many colleagues, was to work on the cataclysmic Flight 103.

The airline is responsible to notify next of kin, provide lodging, transportation, meals, clergy, medical doctors, emotional and logistic support at the crash site and at points of departure and arrival -- in my case, JFK airport. The State Department is responsible for coordinating interaction with the foreign embassies when disasters occur outside of the US. Sequentially, official airline "disaster mode" tasks were relegated to Pan Am execs and staff and the course of action began.

Everyone who was assigned Flight 103 assembled in the lounge and was relegated a specific assignment. Myself and other colleagues were designated contact people. As area C & D agents escorted families into the lounge one at a time, I immediately had to verify the victim's identity via the flight manifest that we each had on a clipboard which listed the names of the 270 passengers and crew onboard Flight 103. When I asked the family to disclose the name of the passenger they were meeting, I was required to secure vital information such as their relationship to the victim and contact numbers. Maintaining a modem of decorum was a priority. Not having been professionally or psychologically trained in working disasters of such magnitude, inner strength and numbness enabled me to carry out my duties without falling apart emotionally as I stoically confirmed their worst nightmare.

At approximately 5:30, the relentless and despicable pursuit for media sensationalism already began at the terminal. Hundreds of reporters swarmed in like vultures ready to attack innocent prey. They tried to force their way beyond the sealed-off ropes to gain access into the first class lounge. They pushed through barricades that protected the families being escorted during their terrifying walk from "Area C and D" towards the lounge where catastrophic realities awaited them.

Meanwhile, the local Pan Am VIP's started converging in the lounge in an attempt to disseminate details to us from Lockerbie. We were advised that at 8:00 pm, the CEO would come in and hold a private conference to update the families, which would be followed by a national press conference outside of the doors. When Tom P[laskett] entered the lounge and stood on a make shift podium, you could sense the collective sounds of everyone's heartbeat. All terrified eyes in that room faced him, and all arms were tightly interlocked with one another as they braced themselves for the unimaginable.

And then, emotionally, he made the official announcement: there were no survivors. For the second time that night, emotional paralysis befell the families and their unbearable pain could be heard around the world. We all held on to them, for had we let go, they would have fallen to the ground. The slightest glimmer of hope for survival had been shattered and our tasks were re-assigned from rescue mode to recovery mode.

While working the "room" that night, myself and several of my colleagues had been informed by upper management that Flight 103 was presumably brought down by a bomb. It was also established that night that Pan Am officials and Washington DC were aware of this time-framed bomb threat, since American embassies were put on alert several weeks prior to Dec 21st.

As the investigative events unfolded from month to month and year to year, even to this day, the truth remains elusive.

Dec 21, 1988 was the day the lounge was transformed from an opulent inner sanctum for the privileged first class passenger, to an urbane chamber of horrors for the next of kin.

A tale of two governments

[This is the headline over an article published today on John Ashton’s website Megrahi: You are my Jury.  It reads as follows:]

On this, the 24th anniversary of the Lockerbie bombing, comes a remarkable story, courtesy of the BBC. It carries the encouraging headline Lockerbie bombing: Libyan government set to release files. The first sentence reads: ‘The new Libyan government in Tripoli is prepared to open all files relating to the Lockerbie bombing, the country’s ambassador to the UK has confirmed.’ 

There’s nothing especially new here: the Libyan government, and the National Transitional Council before it, have always made the right noises about cooperating with the Scottish police investigation. It’s the next sentence that is so surprising: ‘However, Mahmud Nacua said it would be at least another year before Libya was in a position to release whatever information it holds.’ The article explains:‘Mr Nacua told the BBC no formal agreement had yet been reached, but that Libya would open the files it holds on the case. He said that would only come when his government had fully established security and stability – a process he believes will take at least a year.’

Of course, the new government has to establish security and stability and, of course, it has other pressing priorities, but in a year’s time it will be almost two and a half years since the old regime fell. Locating and handing over whatever files exist should be a relatively quick and straightforward matter, which should not interfere with the nation building process.

Why, then, is the government stalling? In my view, the most likely explanation is that it has no evidence that the old regime was behind the bombing. If ever there was evidence, it would probably have been shredded a long time ago. I believe it’s rather more likely that there never was such evidence. While I doubt anyone in the new government will be prepared to say this publicly, there are plenty of senior officials who are aware that the case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was a sham (and, of course, as things stand, the case against Abdelbaset is the case against the Gadafy regime).

The new government is potentially in a very awkward position, as during the 2011 revolution the NTC played the Lockerbie card in the propaganda war against Gadafy. It would be very difficult for it to now admit that it had no evidence of the old regime’s involvement. And it would be especially embarrassing for former NTC chair Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who claimed to have proof that the dictator ordered the bombing. (It’s worth remembering that when pressed on BBC Newsnight about the evidence, the best he could come up with was that Gadafy’s government had paid Abdelbaset’s legal bills, a fact that was both widely known and, more importantly, completely non-incriminating. I have written more about Jalil’s and other Gadafy regime defectors’ claims here.)

That said, I have a good deal of sympathy with the Libyan government, which is caught in the middle of a mess that, for the most part, is not of its own making. I cannot say the same of the Scottish government, which continues to dig an ever-deeper hole for itself. The latest shovel load comes in a letter I received yesterday from the criminal law and licensing division of the government’s justice directorate, in response to a freedom of information request.

I made the request to get to the bottom of why the government has repeatedly gone out of its way to say that it does not doubt the safety of Abdelbaset’s conviction, even after the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons, which, lest we forget, found six possible grounds for a miscarriage of justice. In response to my original request, the government confirmed that the justice secretary, Kenny McAskill, had read the statement of reasons and that Alex Salmond was provided with a briefing on its contents. You can read the response and the appended documents here. It contained the following statement:

It might be helpful for me to clarify Scottish Ministers’ position concerning the safety of Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction. Scottish Ministers have stated repeatedly their view that as Mr Al-Megrahi was conyicted in a court of law, that a court remains the only appropriate forum for considering the evidence and determining his guilt or innocence. Following consideration of all relevant matters, only a court has the power to either uphold or overturn Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction. It remains open for relatives of Mr Al-Megrahi or, potentially, relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case to the court for a further appeal and Ministers have made clear they would be comfortable if this were to happen.

This prompted me to write back as follows:

Your letter points out that the government has stated that a court remains the only appropriate forum for considering the evidence and determining Mr Megrahi’s guilt or innocence. While this is true, it is also the case that the government has repeatedly stated that it does not doubt the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction. It is very unusual for a government to take a partisan stance on a conviction that has been referred to the appeal court. This issue was at the heart of my information request, yet is not addressed in your letter.

I would therefore like to know:
1) Why did the government consider it necessary to express the view that it did not doubt the safety of Mr Megrahi’s conviction, rather than simply stating that it was for the courts to determine the safety of the conviction?
2) Why did it consider it necessary to publicly hold to that view after the publication of the statement of reasons and the reading of the statement by Mr MacAskill?
3) Why does Mr MacAskill not doubt the safety of the conviction when the SCCRC found six grounds to doubt its safety?

In yesterday’s letter, which you can read here, the government could offer only the following shameful dissembling response:

As you will be aware, it is not a role of the Scottish Government to investigate allegations that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Any person who alleges that they have been a victim of a miscarriage of justice may apply to the SCCRC, which was established in 1999 to review cases where it is alleged that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, either in respect of a conviction or sentence. Where, following investigation, the SCCRC concludes that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and that it is in the interests of justice to do so, it will refer the case to the High Court for determination. Mr Al-Megrahi, as you know, chose to abandon his appeal before it was determined by the High Court.

In general terms, in the absence of any court decision quashing a person’s conviction, it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to call into question the safety of any conviction which is why it was appropriate for the Scottish Government to state that it did not doubt Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction as the conviction was at the time of such statements (and indeed continues to be) a matter of court record. We have also made clear that a court remains the only appropriate forum for determining Mr Al-Megrahi’s guilt or innocence and explained the process by which a further appeal could be heard by the court in this case.

This begs the question, if it would be inappropriate for the government to call into question the safety of the conviction, why does it consider it appropriate to state that it does not doubt the safety of the conviction? There is a world of difference between it saying that Abdelbaset’s conviction was a matter of court record, and it saying that it does not doubt the safety of the conviction. The former is a neutral statement of fact, whereas the latter is a highly contentious opinion, which, in my view, represents political interference in the appeal process (although Abdelbaset abandoned his appeal, as the government well knows, his family might launch a fresh application to the SCCRC).

Why did the Scottish government decide to nail its colours to the prosecution mast? In my view it’s because it daren’t admit that Scotland’s foremost independent institution, its criminal justice system (the prosecution arm of which is headed by McAskill’s cabinet colleague, the Lord Advocate), made a hash of the UK’s biggest ever murder case.

Pro-Megrahi backers flayed by new Lord Advocate

[This is the headline over an article by Magnus Linklater (whose views on Lockerbie are well-known) in today’s edition of The Times.  It reads as follows:]

Scotland’s Lord Advocate has launched a powerful and stinging attack against “conspiracy theorists” who claim that the Lockerbie bomber was wrongly convicted.

In the most detailed rebuttal yet made to the case mounted by campaigners who argue that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi was innocent and that Libya was not involved in the terrorist bomb plot that brought Pan Am 103 down over Lockerbie 24 years ago today, Frank Mulholland, QC, calls the allegations “without foundation”.

He goes on to accuse those making them of uttering “defamatory” comments against High Court judges who are unable to respond. [RB: Justice for Megrahi has made no defamatory comments against any High Court judge.  It is not defamatory of the Zeist judges to say that they were wrong in finding Megrahi guilty. Lawyers all the time say that judges got things wrong (and almost every time an appeal is allowed, other judges say so too). And in the Lockerbie case even the SCCRC concluded that, on an absolutely crucial point, no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that the Zeist judges reached.  JFM in its recent allegations of criminality was very careful not to say that then Lord Advocate (and now High Court judge) Colin Boyd had attempted to pervert the course of justice.]

Mr Mulholland, who has relaunched an investigation into what he calls an act of “state-sponsored terrorism” by the former Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi, says that he has been through all the evidence and is convinced that al-Megrahi’s conviction was “safe”.

An outside counsel invited by the Lord Advocate to conduct an independent review of the evidence has also concluded that the conviction was sound. [RB: It would be interesting to know the identity of this outside counsel.  Here, by contrast, is a short list of eminent lawyers who have concluded that the conviction was not sound: Benedict Birnberg, Gareth Peirce, Michael Mansfield QC, David Wolchover, Len Murray, Ian Hamilton QC, Jock Thomson QC, John Scott QC.  There are many more.]

“I am hugely frustrated that there is an unfounded attack on the integrity of the judges involved in the process,” Mr Mulholland said. “I saw a report on the BBC that [claimed] a high court judge — Colin Boyd, Lord Advocate at the time — perverted the course of justice. And it frustrates me that they’re not in a position to answer these allegations, these can be made without being challenged and without any real foundation.” [RB: At least Mr Mulholland does not here make the error of accusing JFM of responsibility for the BBC’s egregious misinterpretation of the English language.]

He compared the allegations to the uncontrolled media attempts to blacken the name of Lord MacAlpine, the former Conservative Party treasurer, over child abuse.

“I deplore any of that,” he said. “The appropriate place for voicing any concerns about the evidence is before a court of law, not in the court of public opinion, or the media. I haven’t spoken to the people who are affected by this, but I would imagine that they are frustrated that their reputations can be so easily attacked, and they can’t do anything about it.”

Mr Mulholland, who has been to Libya to make contact with the new regime, is hopeful that permission will be given soon to send Scottish police officials to Tripoli to gather evidence that would not only buttress the case against al-Megrahi, but reopen the wider plot to down the US airliner.

He believes that a criminal investigation rather than a public inquiry is the best way to resolve the 1988 Lockerbie case.

“I take the view that the calls for a public inquiry are essentially to set up a vehicle which would be a surrogate criminal court, he said. “I believe that the guilt or innocence of al-Megrahi is entirely a matter for the courts.”

He issued a challenge to the al-Megrahi apologists: “If you don’t like the set-up of the justice system, then what you do is you change it, through the democratic vehicle of parliament. You change the law.”

Mr Mulholland says he has studied all the claims advanced in the book Megrahi: You are my Jury by the writer John Ashton, and finds no evidence to support them. He urged those arguing that al-Megrahi was innocent to put any additional evidence to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

“Mr Megrahi stood trial before a Scottish court and was convicted by three judges unanimously, then an appeal, where five judges unanimously upheld the conviction, hearing additional evidence about the Heathrow break-in [the claim that the bomb went aboard there],” he said. “Having heard all the arguments presented to them, they upheld the conviction. Part of our justice system is the [commission] for which I have the highest regard. Anyone who is concerned about a conviction can make an application to the commission.”

He added: “The commission had access to all the Crown’s papers, and they took the view that in relation to a very limited number of grounds, the case should be referred back to the appeal court, which they did. The defence were entitled to expand the appeal beyond the grounds of referral, and they included a number of grounds which had been rejected by the commission, and the court was in the process of hearing that appeal when al-Megrahi abandoned his appeal.

“Now, whatever you think, and everyone is entitled to their view as to whether he is guilty or not, the courts took the view that following a trial and an appeal and a subsequent appeal, which was abandoned, al-Megrahi’s conviction still stands and that is the application of the rule of law.”

Mr Mulholland believes the evidence shows that the previous Libyan regime under Colonel Gaddafi was involved in “an act of state-sponsored terrorism”.

He is working with the FBI, the US Attorney-General and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to pursue investigations. “We are applying the rule of law,” he said. “If you follow the evidence, it leads to Libya.”

The darkest of our days

[This is the headline over an item published today on the Lockerbie Truth website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph.  It reads in part:]

Today, the 21st of December, the darkest day of our year.  

Dark for those who, twenty four years ago, lost fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, babes in arms in the greatest terror attack against our nation since the Second World War.

Dark for those relatives who watched at Kamp Zeist a travesty of a trial when two Libyans were accused of the great crime we know as "Lockerbie".

And dark for those Scottish police, forensic scientists, lawyers, the American FBI and Britain's MI6, all of whom were responsible for a miscarriage of British justice perhaps greater than any that had occurred before. (...)

And so the history of Lockerbie has in general revealed a deceit greater even than that contrived by the police following the Hillsborough disaster. In that case it is now known that important evidence was concealed and scores of police statements altered so as to make it appear that the many fans who were crushed were responsible for their own deaths. Thankfully the original inquest verdict which formed that view has now been overturned by an act of the British parliament, and a new inquest ordered.

And so we are drawn inevitably to the following questions:

Will the Scottish government at least consider that a Lockerbie verdict based on evidence by bribed identification witnesses and a bomb timer fragment possessing all the hallmarks of a clandestine plant might be overturned by judicial inquiry?

Will action be taken against [the Scottish police officer] who concealed from the trial and appeal judges his personal record of offers of multi-million dollar rewards to the only two identification witnesses in the Lockerbie case?

Or might a more comprehensive inquiry ask why several warnings of intended bombings prior to the Lockerbie attack were consciously ignored?

Who might now ask why a break-in at the terminal adjoining the loading areas of Pan Am and Iran Air on the night preceding the attack was discounted, the security officer's report routinely filed, and evidence given thirteen years later by that same officer, by then close to death, mocked in a court of appeal?

As this darkest of days ticks away the minutes, where does the great deceit of the Lockerbie trial now stand? And why do the British and Scottish parliaments remain silent?

[Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has just published an article headlined Swire: Pan Am 103 a greater deceit than Hillsborough.]

Lockerbie bombing: Libyan government set to release files

[This is the headline over a report published this morning on the BBC News website.  It reads as follows:]

The new Libyan government in Tripoli is prepared to open all files relating to the Lockerbie bombing, the country's ambassador to the UK has confirmed.

However, Mahmud Nacua said it would be at least another year before Libya was in a position to release whatever information it holds.

The move comes on the 24th anniversary of the of bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Scotland, which killed 270 people.

Bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died this year after being released in 2009.

Megrahi, a Libyan agent, was released by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds, suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

He remains the only person ever convicted of the bombing, but Scottish police hope to pursue other suspects in Libya following the country's revolution and downfall of Colonel Gaddafi in 2011.

Scotland's top prosecutor recently wrote to the new Libyan prime minister for help and the UK government has said it was pressing Tripoli "for swift progress and co-operation" on the Lockerbie case.

Mr Nacua told the BBC no formal agreement had yet been reached, but that Libya would open the files it holds on the case.

He said that would only come when his government had fully established security and stability - a process he believes will take at least a year.

In April of this year, Scotland's Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland travelled to Tripoli with the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, requesting co-operation after the fall of Gaddafi.

This was followed in May by a meeting with Libya's interim prime minister in London to discuss further inquires into the bombing.

At the time, a Crown Office spokesman said: "The prime minister asked for clarification on a number of issues relating to the conduct of the proposed investigation in Libya and the lord advocate has undertaken to provide this.

"The prime minister made it clear that he recognised the seriousness of this crime and following the clarification he would take this forward as a priority." 

[A report just published on the Telegraph website contains the following:]

Dr Jim Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora died in the atrocity, welcomed the development but said the truth would not be discovered until “the nonsense of the case against Megrahi” had been exposed.

Dr Swire, the former spokesman for the British relatives of Lockerbie group, said: “Where Libya is concerned, we may discover some mischief from the Gaddafi days but the more urgent matter is showing Megrahi was not involved.”

Referring to Megrahi’s conviction, he said: “It is de facto protecting those responsible from investigation. Anything that might reveal something about the truth is welcome but Scotland is the first place to look.”

Robert Forrester, secretary of the Justice for Megrahi campaign group, said: "It is excellent news on the grounds that more openness on the part of all governments involved in this, not just Libya but Scotland, the UK and the US, is to be welcomed.”

Twenty-four years on: why Lockerbie does not simply go away

Twenty-four years ago today Pan Am 103 exploded in the sky above Lockerbie. In May this year, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murdering those killed aboard the aircraft and on the ground, died. Why, therefore, does the Lockerbie case not simply fade into the mists of history? Here are some of the reasons:

1.  From me: Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result and The fairy story of the Crown's independence

2.  From Dr Morag Kerr: Lockerbie: Fact and Fiction

3.  From Gareth Peirce:  The framing of al-Megrahi

4.  From David Wolchover:  Exploding Lockerbie -- Part 1 and Part 2, and A postscript on Lockerbie

5.  From James Robertson:  The Lockerbie affair and Scottish society

Official Report of Justice Committee's deliberations on Megrahi petition

[The Official Report of the session of the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee on 11 December 2012 at which Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) was considered is now available.  The relevant section reads as follows:]

The Convener (Christine Grahame):  I do not use the bing-bong button very often, but I used it there. I will not name names, but members have had 10 minutes. Agenda item 4 is petition PE1370, from the Justice for Megrahi campaign. Members have a paper from the clerk, which sets out the background for our consideration of the petition and includes a submission from the petitioners. Members will note that paragraph 7 of the clerk’s paper says that the petitioners have asked that the committee keep the petition open while Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary considers their allegations. I declare that I am a member of the Justice for Megrahi campaign.Do members have any comments?

John Finnie: I hope that the committee agrees to keep the petition open. The papers that we have from the Justice for Megrahi committee mention significant issues.We should draw a distinction between complaints about service delivery by organisations such as the Crown Office and the police service, and serious accusations against individuals who work for those organisations. There are issues for others to speak about relating to confidential covers that are put on letters and what the expectations about them are from all sides. I certainly understand why the Justice for Megrahi people feel aggrieved about the manner in which the issue came into the public domain. I refer to the end of the first paragraph under the heading “Discussion” on page 5 of paper 3. It seems to me that there is a classic catch-22 situation. There is understandable frustration where there are serious allegations for the Crown Office, which may be expected to act in the roles of judge, jury and accused.There are a number of unresolved issues. For that reason, I sincerely hope that committee members will agree to keep the petition open. That would certainly be the public expectation.

Roderick Campbell:  It remains the case that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission can consider a previously abandoned appeal. I think that Mr Megrahi died in May. That is not that long a period of time for his family, for example, to have reached a full view on the matter, particularly given the current position in Libya. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to take any formal step and, given the position and the on-going Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary investigation, it seems inappropriate to take a final view on the matter. We should therefore keep the petition open for the  time being.

Colin Keir: I agree.

David McLetchie:  I concur with what John Finnie and Roderick Campbell have said. We should keep the petition open until we get information back from Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary in response to the complaint.There is one thing that I query. As I understood the legislation that we passed in the Parliament earlier this year, it is open to a family member of one of the bereaved to trigger a process. In light of the political background, I understand why that might be difficult for Mr Megrahi’s family who are based in Libya, but I do not quite see why a family member of one of the Lockerbie victims cannot institute that process. We would then be on our way.

The Convener: You may remember that there must be title and interest in pursuing a case. It would probably be a matter for the court to decide whether there was a close enough association, although I am not saying that a bereaved family member could not do that. Therefore, I think that it is not mandatory. I fully agree with keeping the matter open, but I would separate the possible appellate procedure—the resuscitation of it or somebody stepping into the appellant’s shoes—from allegations that are made about the way in which the case was handled. Those matters may collide at some point, but they are distinct from each other at the moment. I agree with John Finnie that, with both of those aspects still alive, there is a public interest issue, and people would expect the committee to allow this petition to continue to breathe oxygen.

Jenny Marra: I think that the petition should be kept open, for all the reasons that have been rehearsed, but particularly because there seem to be unanswered questions with regard to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary. I would like to see the conclusion of that investigation.

Sandra White: I concur.

Alison McInnes: I also concur.

Graeme Pearson: So do I.

The Convener: It is unanimous.

John Finnie:  It would be appropriate for the committee to keep a watching brief on the issue of the complaint against the Crown Office, which could have implications beyond this specific case. We would need to understand the position ofsomeone tendering such a complaint and how that would be responded to. I would hope, at the very least, that we would maintain an interest in the issue, even if we donot inquire further.

The Convener:  Can we think about what we might do in that regard on another occasion, rather than today? Rather than being proactive, we are keeping the petition open and allowing it to take its own course. The issue that you raise could be dealt with in more detail at another meeting.

John Finnie: Yes.

The Convener:  Thank you. We will keep the petition open, pro tem.