On this day: three items from the archive

1.  On 9 May 2008 an item appeared headed Iranian resistance group claims Iran responsible for Pan Am 103. Here is an excerpt: 

'The NCRI [National Council of Resistance of Iran] unambiguously blames Tehran for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over the town of Lockerbie. On their official web site one can read the following.

'"The policy of kowtowing to the Iranians goes back a long way. It started in the late 1980s when Sir Geoffrey Howe, the then foreign secretary, attempted to establish a constructive dialogue with the mullahs in what proved a futile attempt to persuade Teheran to free British hostages in Lebanon.

'As part of this policy, the British government took the shameful decision to drop its claim that the Iranians had masterminded the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988, even though British intelligence uncovered significant evidence of Iranian involvement."'

2.  On 9 May 2009 there was posted an item headed Megrahi transfer row puts Salmond under pressure. The following are excerpts:

‘Alex Salmond yesterday came under mounting pressure not to send the Lockerbie bomber home to die as he insisted politics would play no part in any transfer.

‘The First Minister said the request to allow terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya would be considered on “judicial grounds alone”.

‘Ministers have up to 90 days to reach a decision on the case under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck between then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi two years ago. American Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora was among those killed, last night said she had already e-mailed the Nationalist administration pleading for the request to be refused.

‘Ms Cohen said: “It would be a horrible slap in the face to the Scottish justice system if this man, who is a convicted mass murderer lest we forget, is allowed home. There are many conspiracy theories but not a single shred of evidence has come out saying anything other than the truth of Libyan involvement. He would be feted as a hero back in Libya.”’

3.  On 9 May 2011 there appeared an item headed Judge at first Megrahi appeal retires. I commented: “The judge in question, Lord Osborne, asked many penetrating questions during the course of the appeal and had the Crown struggling to provide answers.  Regrettably, the restricted compass within which Megrahi's then legal team chose to present the appeal meant that the court could not give effect to the weighty concerns raised by Lord Osborne and his colleague Lord Kirkwood.”

Scottish justice must show that it is open to criticism

[This is the headline over an article by Bruce Gardner published in today’s edition of the Scottish Review.  It reads in part:]

Kenneth Roy's articles (2 May and 3 May) on our fatal accident inquiry system raise issues of public concern. This is especially so in relation to a substantial delay over the inquiry into the 2010 death of schoolgirl Natasha Paton, and a failure, to date, of the Scottish court system to deliver an outcome or satisfactorily explain the delay.

We read that Kenneth Roy's legitimate journalistic inquiry was countered on Twitter of all places, using the material that was forbidden to him for publication by one representing the Scottish court system. This is deeply worrying. To present a case by back-channel is a PR game, not respectful engagement. If Twitter be how press scrutiny is to be fielded today, obscurantism and populism become the oddest of bedfellows. (...)

The discourteous resort to social media might be giving a false impression of the justice system and someone may now come forward to apologise for the poor response to date, then do a better job. However, a few things require to be said.

First, the reputation of the Scottish justice system, post-McKie and Al-Megrahi, is shaky. Serious doubts continue to be expressed over the propriety and effectiveness of the whole system, latterly over the issue of corroboration, so that the instinctive pride which we Scots once expressed over our own justice system has lately taken severe knocks. Thus, the way the judiciary handles Kenneth Roy's complaint will be a crucial indicator of how incompetent and arrogant – or, conversely, of how reforming and humble – it currently is.

[A sterling example of this type of incompetence and arrogance is the kneejerk response of the Crown Office to the formal allegations made by Justice for Megrahi of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial.  They were immediately dismissed as “defamatory and entirely unfounded” and “deliberately false and misleading” by the very body to which the police investigating the allegations requires to report and which must decide whether any prosecutions should be brought.]

Libya delays Lockerbie verdict on Gaddafi ministers

[This is the headline over a report published today by the Agence France Presse news agency.  It reads as follows:]

A Libyan court on Monday postponed its verdict in the case of two officials from ousted dictator Moamer Kadhafi's regime accused of "financial crimes" connected to compensation for the 1988 Lockerbie plane bombing.

Abdelati al-Obeidi, a former foreign minister, and Mohamed Belgassem al-Zwai, ex-speaker of parliament [RB: and ambassador in London], were accused of mismanaging public funds in compensating families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, according to charges read by the judge.

The criminal court in Tripoli postponed the verdict until June 17 "to allow more time to study the file," the judge said.

At a hearing in September, the jailed pair pleaded not guilty to the charges. Their lawyer argued that they had not made any personal gain and had negotiated on behalf of the authorities.

The prosecution has said Obeidi and Zwai were responsible for negotiating settlements with the Lockerbie families and had paid out double the amount originally planned in return for Libya's removal from a US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

In 2003, the Kadhafi regime officially acknowledged responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 that killed 270 people. [RB: No, Libya didn’t. Here is what it actually acknowledged.]  Libya paid 2.7 billion dollars (2.1 billion euros) in compensation to victims' families.

[This blog’s coverage of the proceedings against Messrs Zwai and Obeidi who, in my assessment -- and I met them on many occasions --, were two of the good guys in the Gaddafi regime, can be found here. I am shocked at their appearance in a photograph (last in the series) on the BBC News website.]

Lockerbie film to be produced by Skye-based company

[I am grateful to journalist Bob Smyth, who wrote the piece in yesterday’s Scottish edition of The Sun, for this more detailed account of the forthcoming Lockerbie film:]

The producers of hit comedy The Inbetweeners are making a new movie - about the Lockerbie disaster.

Scots-based Young Films are turning from comedy to tragedy with their plans for a hard-hitting film about the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, which claimed the lives of 270 people.

And it’s understood that top Scottish film-maker Kevin Macdonald will direct the project.  Kevin, brother of Trainspotting producer Andrew Macdonald, made the hit movie The Last King of Scotland.

The project by Isle of Skye-based Young Films is the second movie about Lockerbie in the pipeline.

It was revealed last year that producers were at the Cannes Film Festival trying to get funding for a movie about the horror. More detail about that project emerged recently, with news that it would focus on the story of Dr Jim Swire. Dr Swire lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy and has relentlessly campaigned for answers about the case amid his fears that bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted.

It’s believed key real-life characters in the newly-revealed project will include Dr Swire.

Young Films was set up by Christopher Young, who moved to Skye with his family in the 1990s.  His previous work as a producer includes Scots movies Venus Peter and Gregory’s Two Girls but he hit the big-time with The Inbetweeners TV series and smash movie.

Young Films refused to comment on the Lockerbie movie.

But an insider close to the project said: “They are very motivated to make a good film and have shown a lot of commitment to thoroughly researching this controversial case.”

The source added the project was now moving from the research phase to the script preparation stage. He said the film would feature characters involved in Megrahi's defence as well as Dr Swire.

He added: “It will be sympathetic to the claims by Dr Swire and other campaigners that the details outlined in court about how the crime was committed were inaccurate and the conviction of Megrahi was a miscarriage of justice.

“The writer has learned through his investigation of issues such as Deepcut that the official version of events can’t always be trusted.”

Dr Swire said he was aware of the Young Films project but had not signed a contract with them as he was focusing on the other film. He said: “I have friendly relations with the producers.

“I don’t want to blow my own trumpet but I believe the story may have some focus on the campaigning by me and fellow relative Rev John Mosey.”

Rev Mosey lost his daughter Helga in the atrocity and shares Dr Swire’s view that the true facts of the bombing have been concealed by the authorities.

“Any time ordinary members of the public take on the establishment, as we have, it makes a good story.

“I have no idea if the fact that two films are planned will affect things as I’m not in the business.

“I don’t know when either is due to come out but I would have thought whichever film-maker releases theirs first would steal a march on the other.”

The script is being penned by Holby City writer Philip Ralph, who is an expert in dramatising true-life events.

He wrote a play about Deepcut – the shooting deaths of four young soldiers at an Army barracks - which won a Fringe First at the Edinburgh Festival in 2008 and is now being made into a film. He is currently working on a Channel 4 drama about the 7/7 terror attacks on London. His online biography reveals he is “currently developing a feature film with Kevin Macdonald attached to direct, via Young Films”.

A spokesman for Mr Ralph refused to comment on the Lockerbie project.

It's understood that Megrahi's biographer, John Ashton, has also linked up with the producers to help with research. Mr Ashton became the Libyan's deathbed confidant as he and the bomber co-wrote the book Megrahi: You are my Jury, published last year. He refused to comment.

Inbetweeners firm to make Lockerbie film

[This is the headline over a report in today’s Scottish edition of The Sun.  It reads as follows:]

The producers of hit comedy The Inbetweeners are making a movie on the Lockerbie disaster.

Young Films plan to tell the story of the 1988 PanAm 103 bombing from the view of victims' relatives like Dr Jim Swire.

A movie source said: “They are motivated to make a good film and thoroughly researched this controversial case.”

Campaigner Dr Swire, 76, whose daughter Flora, 23, was one of the 270 victims, believes the Libyan agent Abdelbaset al-Megrahi — now dead — was wrongly convicted of the atrocity.

Dr Swire said: “Any time ordinary members of the public take on the establishment, it makes a good story.” Young Films refused to comment.

[An earlier post about a different forthcoming film can be read here.]

Thirteenth anniversary of start of Lockerbie trial

[On this date thirteen years ago the trial of Abdelbaset Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah began at Camp Zeist.  On 31 January 2001, after 84 days of evidence from some 230 witnesses spread over 38 weeks, Fhimah was found not guilty and Megrahi was found guilty.  Here is part of what I wrote in an article published shortly after the verdicts:]

The trial court’s crucial findings and were they justified?

From the 90 paragraph written judgement produced by the trial court (...) it is clear that the court convicted Megrahi on the basis of the following nine factors.

1. The bomb was detonated through the mechanism of a MST-13 digital electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company (MeBo) and supplied principally (but not exclusively) to Libya.

Commentary. The judges accepted prosecution evidence that a fragment of circuit board found among the wreckage of Pan Am 103 came from a MeBo MST-13 timer. The managing director of MeBo had denied this in his evidence, but his credibility was, unsurprisingly, assessed as being very low. The evidence established that timers of this model were supplied predominantly to Libya (though a few did go elsewhere, such as to the East German Stasi). This fragment is also important since it was the only piece of evidence that indicated that the Lockerbie bomb was detonated by a stand-alone, long-running timing mechanism, as distinct from a short-term timer triggered by a barometric device when the aircraft reached a pre-determined altitude (a method known to be favoured by certain Palestinian terrorist cells operating in Europe in 1988). The provenance of this vitally important piece of evidence was challenged by the defence and, in their written Opinion, the judges accept that in a substantial number of respects this fragment, for reasons that were never satisfactorily explained, was not dealt with by the investigators and forensic scientists in the same way as other pieces of electronic circuit board (of which there were a multitude). The judges say that they are satisfied that there was no sinister reason for the differential treatment. But regrettably they do not find it at all necessary to enlighten us regarding the reasons for their satisfaction.

2. A company of which a member of the Libyan intelligence services (Badri Hassan) was a principal for a time had office accommodation in the premises of the Swiss manufacturer, MeBo.

3. Megrahi was a member of the Libyan intelligence service.

Commentary. The only evidence to this effect came from a Libyan defector and CIA asset, Abdul Majid Giaka, now living in the United States under a witness protection programme. He gave evidence highly incriminating of both Megrahi and the co-accused Fhima. However, the trial judges rejected his evidence as wholly and utterly unworthy of credit, with the sole exception of his evidence regarding the Libyan intelligence service and Megrahi’s position therein. The court provides no reasons for accepting Giaka’s evidence on this issue while comprehensively rejecting it on every other matter.

4. The suitcase which contained the bomb also contained clothes and an umbrella bought in a particular shop, Mary’s House, in Sliema, Malta.

5. Megrahi was identified by the Maltese shopkeeper as the person who bought the clothes and umbrella.

Commentary. The most that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, would say (either in his evidence in court or at an identification parade before the trial or in a series of nineteen police statements over the years) was that Megrahi “resembled a lot” the purchaser, a phrase which he equally used with reference to Abu Talb, one of those mentioned in the special defence of incrimination lodged on behalf of Megrahi. Gauci had also described his customer to the police as being six feet [183 cms] tall and over fifty years of age. The evidence at the trial established (i) that Megrahi is five feet eight inches [173 cms] tall and (ii) that in late 1988 he was thirty-six years of age. On this material, the judges found in fact that Megrahi was the purchaser.

6. The purchases were made on 7 December 1988, a date when Megrahi was proved to be on Malta and not on 23 November 1988 when he was not.

Commentary. By reference to the dates on which international football matches were broadcast on television on Malta, Tony Gauci was able to narrow down the date of purchase of the items in question to either 23 November or 7 December. In an attempt to establish just which, the weather conditions in Sliema on these two days were explored. Gauci’s evidence was that when the purchaser left his shop it was raining to such an extent that his customer thought it advisable to buy an umbrella to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence led by the defence established that while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely that it had rained at all on 7 December; and if there had been any rain, it would have been at most a few drops, insufficient to wet the ground. On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December.

7. The suitcase containing the bomb was sent as unaccompanied baggage from Luqa Airport in Malta, via Frankfurt, on the morning of 21 December 1988 on an Air Malta flight, KM 180.

Commentary. The trial judges held it proved that the bomb was contained in a piece of unaccompanied baggage which was transported on Air Malta flight KM 180 from Luqa to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988, and was then carried on a feeder flight to Heathrow where Pan Am flight 103 was loaded from empty. The evidence supporting the finding that there was such a piece of unaccompanied baggage was a computer printout which could be interpreted to indicate that a piece of baggage went through the particular luggage coding station at Frankfurt Airport used for baggage from KM 180, and was routed towards the feeder flight to Heathrow, at a time consistent with its having been offloaded from KM 180. Against this, the evidence from Luqa Airport in Malta (whose baggage reconciliation and security systems were proven to be, by international standards, very effective) was to the effect that there was no unaccompanied bag on that flight to Frankfurt. All luggage on that flight was accounted for. The number of bags loaded into the hold matched the number of bags checked in (and subsequently collected) by the passengers on the aircraft. The court nevertheless held it proved that there had been a piece of unaccompanied baggage on flight KM 180.

8. Megrahi was in Malta on the night of 20/21 December 1988 and left for Tripoli from Luqa Airport on the morning of 21 December.

9. On this visit Megrahi had been travelling on a passport (in a name other than his own) which was never subsequently used.

Commentary. Megrahi (inexplicably, in the view of many) was not called by his lawyers to give evidence on his own behalf at the trial; so no explanation of his use of this passport was ever supplied to the court. There is an innocent (ie non-Lockerbie related) explanation (involving his role in seeking to circumvent US trade sanctions against Libya and obtain Boeing aircraft spare parts on behalf of his employers, Libyan Arab Airlines) which could have been provided.

It is my firm view that the crucial incriminating findings made by the judges were unwarranted by the evidence led in court and were in many cases entirely contrary to the weight of that evidence. I am convinced that no Scottish jury, following the instructions traditionally given by judges regarding the assessment of evidence and the meaning and application of the concept of reasonable doubt, would or could have convicted Megrahi. So how did it come about that the three distinguished and experienced judges who concurred in the verdict felt able to convict him?

In paragraph 89 of the Opinion of the Court it is stated: “We are aware that in relation to certain aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications. We are also aware that there is a danger that by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified.” Regrettably, in my submission, the judges’ intellectual recognition of the danger does not appear to have enabled them to avoid it.

Cable right to challenge Scots omerta

[This is the headline over a letter from Tom Minogue in today’s edition of The Scotsman.  It reads as follows:]

The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, has got a nerve suggesting that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Vince Cable, may be attempting to interfere with the independent investigation and prosecutorial decision-making by the law officers of the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) (“Scots law chief rebukes Cable over RBS legal bid”, 2 May).

All Mr Cable is guilty of is showing civic concern in the delay and apparent lack of interest shown by COPFS in what some might consider a national outrage: the loss of more than £40 billion from Royal Bank of Scotland and the loss of Scotland’s reputation as a prudent financial centre.

COPFS is a master of spin and not slow to set the news agenda, especially when it involves photo opportunities for Mr Mulholland, such as jetting off to Libya to look for more evidence in the Lockerbie bombing case.

Yet in this matter, an ­outrage that has seen people from John O’Groats to the Borders lose out on their life savings, there seems to be a Scots omerta. I have been interviewed by officers from Police Scotland’s Specialist Crime Division in connection with my complaint about possible fraud at Bank of Scotland and HBOS leading to a loss similar to that at RBS.

At the coming HBOS annual general meeting, I will also be asking the board to safeguard records of all past transactions by directors and to follow my example in ­inviting Police Scotland to investigate staff at Bank of Scotland/HBOS over what I believe amounts to criminal conduct.

If in time I see no visible evidence of progress in either complaint, then like Vince Cable I will be writing to the Advocate General, or anyone else who might help expedite the investigation into the outrage that has traduced Scotland’s reputation in the eyes of the world to that of a corrupt, banana republic. 

[Coincidentally, the Scottish Review today publishes a piece by editor Kenneth Roy on delays within the Scottish justice system (including COPFS).]

Delay and the Crown Office

[A report in today’s edition of The Herald contains the following:]

Business Secretary Vince Cable has criticised Scottish authorities amid accusations they are dragging their feet over the potential prosecution of Fred Goodwin and other former directors of Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) following the bank's near-collapse.

Mr Cable made a dramatic intervention in the inquiry by calling for a decision from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service as soon as possible on whether or not legal action will be taken. He warned that public confidence in its work was at stake.

The Crown Office responded by suggesting it would be unfortunate if Mr Cable's comments could be seen as attempted interference with the independent investigation.

The Liberal Democrat MP's Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) asked authorities to look into the actions of the bank's former bosses more than a year ago, following legal advice that prosecutions could be possible. But it has heard nothing since.

[Criticism of the Crown Office over delay!  Whoever would have thought it! Here and here and here and here are just a few examples of what this blog has had to say about Crown Office delaying tactics in the Megrahi case.]

Awards for Lockerbie-related productions

The Aljazeera English documentary Lockerbie: Case closed has won a silver world medal in the Best Investigative Report category at the 2013 New York Festivals: World’s Best TV & Films. The documentary can be viewed here on You Tube.

Tryst Theatre’s production of Kenneth N Ross’s play The Lockerbie Bomber at the Hertford Theatre Week 2013 won both the Ted Harden Rose Bowl as runner-up in the adjudication and also the Freston Salver awarded by audience votes for the play they had enjoyed the most.  The play has a two-week run on the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in August and there is to be a performance in Malta in November.

Lockerbie: we do know what didn't happen

[In an e-mail to Professor Francis A Boyle, thanking him for a signed copy of his book Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade US Campaign to Reverse the Qaddafi Revolution, Dr Jim Swire writes:]

Chapter four closely follows what we have laboriously decoded from amongst the rubbish that we are peddled by the politicians and through the media. I would have greatly valued the opportunity of discussions with you many years ago. (...)

Now your book reinforces the knowledge that we do know what didn't happen, even if we must accept that we do not have much proof of what really did.

How can we hold up our heads as if we were citizens of truth and honesty espousing communities?

It might interest you to know that on one of my trips (in my naivety) to try to persuade Gaddafi to allow his citizens to be tried in what I then believed would be a fair Scottish court, I had a meeting with their chief justice.  He explained that Libya wished to act in conformity with the Montreal Convention [1971] but that they could not, because, would you believe, the West would not provide the evidence which they claimed to have against the two accused. I had already discussed Montreal with Rodney Wallis of ICAO, and could only sympathise with the Chief Justice's position. I accepted a carefully sealed packet from him, which he told me contained details of the Libyan position so that there should be no ambiguity about it in the British Foreign Office.

With some difficulty I persuaded the pilot on the flight back to the UK to radio ahead that I had a sealed package which I wanted to pass to a Foreign Office courier unopened upon landing at Heathrow. No one turned up. I delivered it myself in Whitehall immediately and of course nothing was ever heard about that package again.

Interesting how deceit is actually enacted amongst the humbler citizens who simply seek the truth, poor suckers that we are.

Anyway thank you again for sending the book, it has an honoured place in my Lockerbie library. I am satisfied that you were spot on in your positions over this disgraceful episode. 

[Professor Boyle’s e-mailed reply to Dr Swire contains the following:]

The purpose of my writing that book was to set the record straight from my perspective after the 2011 US/NATO war against Libya.  I owed it to Colonel Ghadafi, Libya, the Libyans, the victims of the Lockerbie Bombing, and their next-of-kin.  If and when Scotland obtains independence in the forthcoming referendum,  maybe we can get to the bottom of what really happened here: (1) who did it; and (2) the cover-up.

[Further references on this blog to Professor Boyle’s views on Lockerbie can be found here.]

Limits on justice and the Crown Office

[On this date five years ago an item appeared on this blog headed Limits on justice. It ran as follows:]

This is the heading over a letter in today's issue of The Scotsman from Iain McKie (father of Shirley). In it he criticises the decision of the Lord Advocate to seek a hearing before a bench of five judges in an attempt to limit Abdelbaset Megrahi's grounds of appeal to those approved by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. A bench of three judges in an earlier case held that if the SCCRC referred a case back to the Appeal Court, the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant need not be confined to the grounds upheld by the Commission. It is this precedent that the Lord Advocate is now seeking to have overruled.

[In 2008 the Lord Advocate’s arguments for limiting the scope of the appeal were comprehensively and decisively rejected.  But the Crown never accepts defeat with good grace. The law, at the instigation of the Crown Office, was in 2010 altered by statute to provide that in future SCCRC appeals will, prima facie, be limited to the grounds upheld by the Commission.]

Refusal to reopen Lockerbie case is damaging reputation of Scots Law

[This is the heading over a letter from Iain A D Mann published in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

I greatly admire Dr Jim Swire's tenacity in his 20-year battle with politicians and legal authorities to get to the truth of the Lockerbie bombing atrocity (Letters, April 26).

The long-running Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi case has already done serious damage to the worldwide reputation of Scots law and the Scottish justice system, of which generations of Scots have been rightly proud in the past but now have cause to feel concerned and ashamed.

The Scottish Government, the Crown Office and the Scottish legal establishment continue to do everything possible to prevent the case being reopened. If they wanted to I am sure a way could be found and their refusal leads one to the conclusion that they are afraid of the probable outcome of another appeal. The report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] stated clearly that there are several strong grounds for a further appeal. Various well-researched books on Lockerbie have raised very serious concerns about the withholding of vital evidence from the defence at the original Camp Zeist trial, the US Justice Department's alleged bribery of key prosecution witness and the refusal of both the British and American governments to release relevant documents even to an appeal court sitting in camera.

Justice must always be seen to be done, and that has not happened in this case.