Call for fresh inquiry into Lockerbie bomb conviction

An item from this blog, one year ago today:

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

Religious leaders, politicians and relatives of some victims of the Lockerbie bombing have called for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the man found guilty of the attack.

In an open letter, the campaigners claimed the case against al-Megrahi “held water like a sieve” and was compromised by both the “bribing” of a witness and “the very real possibility” that key evidence in his trial had been fabricated.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Terry Waite, formerly the Archbishop of Canterbury’s special envoy, and Sir Teddy Taylor, a former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, signed the letter, along with the journalists Kate Adie, Ian Hislop and John Pilger, and 35 others.

Al-Megrahi died at the weekend, almost three years after he was released on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government because he had [prostate] cancer.

The Scottish government denies that it granted his freedom in 2009 only after he decided to drop a second appeal against his conviction. It said that its decision was humane, in accordance with Scottish law.

Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, said that al-Megrahi would answer to “a higher power”.

The campaigners ironically quote Mr MacAskill in their letter, which criticises the Scotttish government. “Fine words are not enough. Action is required,” say the authors.

“If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government acts by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair.

“As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.” (…)

Dr Jim Swire and Rev John Mosey, who both lost daughters on the flight, are among the signatories, who criticised the actions of the Crown Office (the equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales).

“The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about,” write the authors.

They allege a serious of failings in the prosecution case, including the bribery of Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who was a key Crown witness; the possibility that forensic evidence was fabricated; the retraction of some testimony; and the non-disclosure of other evidence. The letter adds: “Evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.”

The Scottish government rejected the inquiry and said that the issues being raised related to the conviction and “must be a matter for a court of law”.

A Scottish government spokesman said that Al-Megrahi’s relatives, or the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity, were all entitled to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case to the Appeal Court again on a posthumous basis.

He added: “Ministers would be entirely comfortable with that.”

A spokesman for the Crown Office said that the only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence was the criminal court.

[A similar article appears today in The Scotsman. A report in today’s edition ofThe Herald contains the following:]

Mr [Tam] Dalyell, a former Father of the House of Commons, told The Herald: "The SNP Government and Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill in particular are burying their heads in the sand on the Lockerbie issue. If they were to admit that Mr Megrahi had nothing to do with the crime of Lockerbie they would then by implication condemn the very institution which shows Scotland to be most separate from England – the justice system.

"The reason to pursue an inquiry after Megrahi's death, is that to not do so would leave an indelible stain on the Scottish justice system. It is about pursuing the truth. I simply do not think party politics should be played on this. If people or parties have to be embarrassed then so be it because they will have brought it on themselves by being less than candid. For the sake of the Scottish justice system we cannot let this go."

[It is sad, but entirely in character, to see the Scottish Government and the Crown Office repeating the tired old mantra that the only proper way to address concerns over the Megrahi conviction is through a court of law. It is indeed true that the only way that the verdict can be overturned is through a further appeal. But we have clear evidence now of flaws -- indeed wrongdoing -- in the Lockerbie investigation and in the conduct of the prosecution. It is quite certainly not the case that only way in which these matters can be ventilated is in an appeal against the verdict. They are matters which have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern; and that is precisely the test that must be satisfied for an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. It would be outrageous if police and Crown wrongdoing in a case could be exposed only if the accused person chose to exercise his right of appeal. Such wrongdoing is a matter of public concern and it is to address such concerns that the 2005 Act exists.  Moreover, such an inquiry could lead to a royal pardon (indeed royal pardons almost invariably flow from inquiries into cases in which there has been a conviction). A royal pardon does not overturn the verdict, which technically still stands, but it is an official recognition that the conviction was flawed. So there really is no constitutional or legal problem about asking for an inquiry into what went wrong in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case.]

First anniversary of death of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi

[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died one year ago today.  Here is the statement that Justice for Megrahi issued on that occasion:]

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has now died without having been able to clear his name of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 on the 21st of December 1988 during his lifetime. Now all those politicians and Megrahi-guilt apologists who regard compassion as being a weakling's alternative to vengeance, who boast of their skills at remote medical diagnosis, and who persistently refuse to address the uncomfortable facts of the case, will doubtless fall silent. Finally, the ‘evil terrorist’ has been called to account for himself before a “Higher Power”.

The prosecution case against him held water like a sieve. We are expected to believe the fantastic tale of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow transfer of an invisible, unaccompanied suitcase which miraculously found itself situated in the perfect position in the hold of 103 to create maximum destructive effect having eluded no fewer than three separate security regimes. There is no evidence for any such luggage ever having left the ground in either Malta or Germany, it is mere surmise. Not only that but we have accusations of the key Crown witness having been bribed for testimony; a multitude of serious question marks over material evidence, including the very real possibility of the crucial fragment of PCB having been fabricated; discredited forensic scientists testifying for the prosecution; Crown witness testimony being retracted after the trial and, most worryingly, allegations of the Crown’s non-disclosure of evidence which could have been key to the defence. Added to which, evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.

The judges were under immense pressure to bring in a verdict of guilty. Zeist was the most high profile trial that the Scottish High Court of Justiciary had ever presided over. There was massive international interest, and this was compounded by the fact that the judges played the dual roles of judge and jury in a case in which the indictments were brought by the same official body that had appointed them as judges in the first instance, the Lord Advocate. Anyone hoping, therefore, to discover an application of sound, empirical reasoning based on concrete evidence being exercised in the field of jurisprudence would do well to avoid the Zeistjudgement. Indeed, the most exceptional of Zeist’s many exceptional features is the judgement. Anyone reading this extraordinary document could be forgiven for thinking that in Scotland there is a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof is on the defence. In the words of Professor Hans Köchler (UN appointed International Observer at the Kamp van Zeist Trial) commenting on the second appeal: “[it] bears the hallmarks of an intelligence operation.”

The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about. Some in the legal and political establishments may well be breathing a sigh of relief now that Mr al-Megrahi has died. This would be a mistake. Many unfortunates who fell foul of outrageous miscarriages of justice in the past have had their names cleared posthumously. The great and the good of western civilisation who have clamoured for Mr al-Megrahi’s blood of late may find it a salutary experience to reflect on the case of Derek Bentley: convicted and hanged in 1953, aged nineteen, for a crime for which in 1998 he was acquitted on his posthumous appeal. However long it takes, the campaign seeking to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed will continue unabated not only in his name and that of his family, who must still bear the stigma of being related to the ‘Lockerbie Bomber’, but, above all, it will carry on in the name of justice. A justice which is still being sought by and denied to many of the bereaved resultant from the Lockerbie tragedy.

It took almost half a century to resolve the Bentley case. With the Zeist justice campaign now in its twelfth year, one has to ask, when faced with such intransigence, precisely whom the democratically elected, executive arm of state represents. Historically, all the major parties, both in Holyrood and Westminster, must shoulder equal responsibility. However, since first coming to power in 2007, the SNP government has actively taken measures which hinder any progress towards lifting the fog that lies over events, much to the dismay of its own party supporters and activists who take an interest in the case. In 2009, a statutory instrument which was supposed to remove the legislative prohibition on publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons for the second appeal (a document that cost tax payers in excess of £1,000,000 to produce) was so drafted as to render publication effectively impossible. In 2010, the government also fired new legislation through parliament (‘Cadder’ Section7) that makes any prospect of opening another appeal in the interests of justice a forlorn hope. Even today, ignoring the fact that, with the support of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, campaigners finally forced the government to admit that it does in law (under the Inquiries Act of 2005) have the power to open an inquiry into the case, the government persists in sending out correspondence claiming that it doesn’t; this, of course, is accompanied by the hackneyed old mantra of their not doubting the safety of the conviction. Furthermore, during the consultation period of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, campaigners established that the Data Protection Act posed no legal obstacle to the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for the second appeal, however, the government maintained otherwise with the result that it was ultimately left to the courage and commitment of members of the journalistic community to test the government’s position to destruction. All of the aforementioned, and the regrettable habit of appointing Crown Office insiders to the position of Lord Advocate, are not reassuring signs that this matter is being treated with a sense of balance and objectivity by the authorities. The record has stuck. The longer this goes on, the more the doubts over the government’s true loyalties will increase.

This case has now become emblematic of an issue which affects each and every one of us and poses some profoundly basic questions which we ignore at our peril, namely: what do we perceive justice to be, what role ought it to play in our society and whom should it exist to serve? Our laws and how we apply them to our society are the most fundamental descriptor of how we function as a cohesive and coherent entity. They are effectively a portrait of our identity as a people. If, through complacency, we permit cosy, established authority to dictate the terms and to brush under the carpet concerns over how justice is defined and dispensed for the sake of convenience, expediency and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, says that “Scotland's Criminal Justice system is a cornerstone of our society, and it is paramount that there is total public confidence in it.” Scotland’s independent and professional arbiter in the matter of referrals to the Court of Appeal, the SCCRC, believe that, on no fewer than six grounds, Mr al-Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice at Zeist. Whether or not the courts are the right and proper platform to deal with this case, the conviction has been in the hands of the High Court of Justiciary since 2001 producing no resolution whatsoever and, moreover, how amenable are the courts now likely to be towards sanctioning another appeal given that they have been invested with new powers which allow them to reject applications which question their own judgements? Fine words are not enough. Action is required. After all, the government took executive action to release Mr al-Megrahi following the dropping of his appeal (something he was under no legal obligation to do). 52% of respondents to an opinion poll conducted by a major Scottish national newspaper supported the call for an independent inquiry into the case. Over a two week period, and with minimal publicity, 1,646 individuals put their names to a petition for an inquiry, which still remains open before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee. If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government act by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair. As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.

Signed:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton (Author of ‘Megrahi: You are my Jury’ and co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business’).

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Mr Benedict Birnberg (Retired senior partner of Birnberg Peirce & Partners).

Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Mr Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103).

Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Dr David Fieldhouse (Police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site).

Mr Robert Forrester (Secretary of Justice for Megrahi).

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).

Mr Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector).

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of ‘Private Eye’).

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21st December 1988).

Ms A L Kennedy (Author).

Dr Morag Kerr (Secretary Depute of Justice for Megrahi).

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).

Mr Moses Kungu (Lockerbie councillor on the 21st of December 1988).

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (Poet and journalist).

Mr Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator).

Mr Rik McHarg (Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites).

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).

Mr Marcello Mega (Journalist covering the Lockerbie incident).

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for ‘Private Eye’).

Rev’d John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Len Murray (Retired solicitor).

Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church).

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).

Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of ‘The Firm’).

Dr Tessa Ransford OBE  (Poetry Practitioner and Adviser).

Mr James Robertson (Author).

Mr Kenneth Roy (Editor of ‘The Scottish Review’).

Dr David Stevenson (Retired medical specialist and Lockerbie commentator).

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Mr Terry Waite CBE (Former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hostage negotiator).

Scots deserve to know the truth... even 25 years on

[This is the headline over an opinion piece by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary Robert Forrester in today’s Scottish edition of the Sunday Express.  The published version can be read here.  The text originally submitted reads as follows:]

The 21st of December will mark a quarter of a century since Pan Am 103 came down on Lockerbie killing all 259 people on board and a further eleven on the ground. The following month will see the twelfth anniversary of the day on which the Scottish judiciary convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi of bombing the plane. Mr al-Megrahi has been dead for exactly a year. So what relevance does the Lockerbie/Zeist justice campaign have in the here and now?

Dying acquits no one of a crime, therefore, unless something is done to change it, Mr al-Megrahi will remain convicted of 270 murders. The fundamental question mark which lies at the very heart of Zeist is whether or not one believes in phantoms. The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) managed, by Oscar winning guile, to persuade the court that a fantasy bomb suitcase travelled to Heathrow from Luqa via Frankfurt. The judges were deprived of evidence, which, if presented, would have driven a juggernaut festooned with blue flashing lights and wailing sirens straight through the case against Mr al-Megrahi, namely: witness statements given to police, later reiterated in sworn testimony at the Fatal Accident Inquiry, describing the existence at Heathrow of a rogue suitcase as not only being in precisely the location forensic investigators concluded the bomb had been in but, equally notable, identifying its colour and type before forensics revealed these details. Furthermore, this rogue suitcase was observed prior to the Frankfurt feeder flight’s arrival at Heathrow. Exactly what drove the effort to divert attention away from Heathrow and a real rogue bag to Luqa and an imagined one is anyone’s guess. That it happened is indisputable.

The allegations of criminality lodged by campaigners against officials from police, COPFS and forensic backgrounds last November concern the above issue and other instances of suspected serious criminal wrongdoing associated with Lockerbie/Zeist. These allegations support the call for an independent inquiry into the investigation and all the legal processes involved in the case.

In a letter to the Scottish Parliament of 7 January 2011, the Scottish Government finally admitted that it had the power to institute an independent inquiry into Lockerbie/Zeist under the Inquiries Act of 2005. It, nevertheless, refuses to sanction this on the ground that such an inquiry would not take account of the case’s international dimensions. Campaigners strongly maintain, however, that more than ample evidence falls within the sway of Scottish jurisdiction to shred the COPFS case with ease and establish Mr al-Megrahi’s innocence. The government knows this but responds only with obfuscation.

Moreover, by refusing to invoke the same law, Justice Secretary MacAskill’s reaction to the campaigners’ request for these allegations to be investigated by an independent body entertains a blatant conflict of interest. Incredibly, it invites COPFS and the Scottish police to be judge, jury and accused! This novel approach to justice is not restricted to the Justice Directorate. Lord Advocate Mulholland and COPFS have sought to publicly vilify campaigners in an attempt to dismiss their allegations out of hand. In so doing, Mr Mulholland has brought massive discredit upon his office and it could be argued comprehensively failed to reach the standards of probity and impartiality laid down by the International Association of Prosecutors.

In the name of putting victims first, the government’s current criminal legislative programme, staunchly supported by COPFS, is creating a dangerous mirage of justice and improved crime clear up rates via: the abolition of the prohibition on double jeopardy, disposing of corroboration, and ‘Cadder’ section 7 (appeals). This will inevitably produce a significant increase in the numbers of miscarriages. Thus, COPFS the police and the government may improve their images through this charade, but will be doing so by incarcerating the innocent.

The role of COPFS is not to aggressively prosecute cases for the sake of expedience and reputation, thus creating even more victims, but to serve the interests of justice and prosecute cases impartially without fear favour or prejudice. For too long the former has prevailed at Chambers Street, and it shows little sign of changing.

Is Zeist relevant today? Given the direction that the Scottish criminal justice system is moving in, as it sleepwalks its way towards even more miscarriages of justice, the answer must be demonstrably yes. With 270 miscarriages emanating from a single process, it is emblematic of the parlous state of our criminal justice system.

The Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament will review the call for an independent Lockerbie inquiry on 4 June.

Two years of Frank Mulholland as Lord Advocate

[Today marks the second anniversary of the appointment of Frank Mulholland QC as Lord Advocate.  Here is what I wrote on this blog at the time:]

This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister). 

The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.

[The Mulholland tenure of office has been just as undistinguished as anticipated. The melancholy history of his Lockerbie involvement can be followed here.]

Events marking publication of James Robertson's Lockerbie novel

The following events have been scheduled to mark the publication in June of James Robertson’s new novel The Professor of Truth:

Boswell Book Festival, Auchinleck: James Robertson in conversation with Tam Dalyell, Sunday 19 May. Link here for more info: http://www.boswellbookfestival.co.uk/index.php/programme/sunday-19-may/item/james-robertson

Hay on Wye: James Robertson, Jim Swire and Philippe Sands, 10am Friday 31 May. Link here for more info: http://www.hayfestival.com/p-6071-jim-swire-and-james-robertson-talk-to-philippe-sands.aspx

London Literature Festival: James Robertson, Jim Swire and Alan Little, 1pm Saturday 1 June. Link here: http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/james-robertson-73931

Edinburgh: James Robertson book launch 7pm Thursday 6 June. Link here: http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=James|Robertson

Kirkcaldy: James Robertson event Saturday 8 June. Link here: http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/whatson/index.cfm?fuseaction=whatson.display&themeid=&id=659C55FD-BFFC-4A34-0A5FE68605CB982E

Dundee: James Robertson event Tuesday 11 June. Link here: http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=James|Robertson

Biggar: James Robertson event Thursday 13 June. Link here: http://www.atkinson-pryce.co.uk/index.asp?pageid=28494

Ayr: James Robertson event Wednesday 19 June. Link here: http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/displayDetailEvent.do?searchType=1&author=James|Robertson

A review of the novel in The List by Kevin Scott can be read here.  Further reviews can be read here and here.]

Scotland's Lord Advocate challenged over remarks on Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Exaro news agency. A summary of the report reads as follows:]

Scottish Crown Office accused of mishandling allegations over conduct of Lockerbie case

Scotland's most senior law officer has been challenged to withdraw dismissive comments about allegations over the investigation and trial of the Lockerbie bombing.

Campaigners for a public inquiry to re-open the case have issued a stinging rebuke to Frank Mulholland, Lord Advocate and head of the Crown Office, Scotland’s prosecuting authority, over his handling of their allegations of criminal conduct in the case following the bombing of a Pan Am jumbo jet over Lockerbie.

Scottish police have launched an investigation into the claims, including allegations against authorities in Scotland of perverting the course of justice.

Review of Prof F A Boyle's "Destroying Libya and World Order"

[A lengthy review on the website of the Albany Tribune of Professor Francis A Boyle’s recent book Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade US Campaign to Reverse the Qaddafi Revolution by the distinguished German political scientist Dr Ludwig Watzal can be read here. Among the Lockerbie references in the review are the following:]

Since the early 1980s, Boyle visited Libya off and on and advised the government on international legal cases. He convinced Gaddafi to sue the United States and the United Kingdom at the International Court of Justice in The Hague over the Lockerbie bombing allegations. Before the filing of this lawsuit, US President Bush senior ordered the Sixth Fleet off the coast of Libya on hostile maneuvers in preparation of another illegal attack like his predecessor Ronald Reagan did.

After Boyle had filed these two World Court lawsuits, Bush senior ordered the warships to stand down. The author also tried to support Gaddafi during the US/NATO war of 2011 but to no avail. (...)

Boyle’s [critique] of the American foreign policy towards Libya is based on his functionalist, Fullerian, and anti-Hobbesian framework of analysis for international law and organizations. In two chapters, he describes the series of military conflicts and crisis between the US and Gaddafi over the Gulf of Sidra and the allegations of international terrorism during the Reagan presidency. In chapter four follows the description of the alleged Lockerbie bombing allegations and the dispute by the US and the United Kingdom against Libya over it.

Time well spent, says FBI Director of Lockerbie investigation

What follows is taken from the account of Robert Mueller’s address at the 2013 graduation ceremony at Virginia’s William & Mary College.

“FBI Director Robert Mueller told W&M graduates Sunday that three qualities are essential for success in life: integrity, service and patience”.

Under his service rubric, Mr Mueller said:

“Turning to the importance of public service, or service over self. I can say that I did not really choose public service. Rather, I more or less fell into it early on, perhaps not fully appreciating the challenges of such service. (...)

“The lessons I learned as a Marine have stayed with me for more than 40 years. The value of teamwork, sacrifice, and discipline – life lessons I could not have learned in quite the same way elsewhere.

“And when I look back on my career, I think of having the opportunity to participate in major investigations, such as the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland … and working shoulder-to-shoulder with homicide detectives in Washington, DC. And I think of my experience over the past 11 years, working with one of the finest institutions in the world – the FBI. These were opportunities that would have been difficult to replicate in the private sector, and that, for me, has been time well spent.”

Further contributions to the Lockerbie saga from Robert Mueller can be read here.

Trumpety-trump, trump, trump, trump

[What follows is an excerpt from a report in today’s edition of The Scotsman:]

Property tycoon Donald Trump yesterday vowed to take Alex Salmond “to hell” as he prepared to launch a legal challenge to the Scottish Government’s support for an offshore wind farm.

Yesterday, Mr Trump said: “This week, I have instructed my lawyers to launch an all-out challenge at the Court of Session to ‘Mad Alex’, as I believe history will someday call Alex Salmond.

“The First Minister’s obsession with turning his nation into the Saudi Arabia of ‘renewables’ … is a disgrace.”

Mr Trump added: “In the case we are filing this week in the Court of Session in Edinburgh we … [are] seeking a judicial review of the decision to build the wind farm, in the hope that sanity will prevail and that the scheme will be scrapped.

“We will lay down the full and embarrassing facts. We will reveal that, in this matter, the First Minister has been ruthless and cynical.

“He misled me and my company, even as he was secretly begging me to help him manipulate world opinion over the freeing of al-Megrahi [a reference to Mr Trump’s claim that Mr Salmond sought his support over the unpopular release of the late convicted Lockerbie bomber who was freed by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with cancer]. (...)

Mr Trump added: “I am going to fight him [Alex Salmond] for as long as it takes – to hell if I have to – and spend as much as it takes to block this useless and grotesque blot on our heritage.”

The Scottish Government remained bullish in its response yesterday, stating that “the direction of energy policy in Scotland is a matter for the democratically elected Scottish Government”.

[Earlier trumpetings can be read here. The lyrics of Nellie the Elephant can be read here.]

Justice for Megrahi and the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee

In anticipation of the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s next consideration of Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE 1370) for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and conviction, the committee of JFM on 2 April submitted a report on its dealings with the Scottish Government’s Justice Directorate, the Crown Office and Dumfries and Galloway Police regarding JFM’s complaint of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial.  Following JFM’s meeting on 16 April with former D & G chief constable Patrick Shearer, now a Deputy Chief Constable with Police Scotland, the committee of JFM submitted a supplementary report to the Justice Committee. 

These two documents may be accessed on the Scottish Parliament website via these links:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/13-PE1370_Petitioner_Submission_of_2_April.pdf and
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/13-PE1370_Petitioner_Submission_of_23_April.pdf

Other documents relating to PE 1370 may be accessed here:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/44107.aspx.

A report to JFM’s membership on the meeting with Mr Shearer by secretary Robert Forrester can be read here.

The next consideration of PE 1370 is due to take place at the Justice Committee meeting on Tuesday 4th June 2013.