Progress report on investigation into JFM's criminality allegations

[What follows is a summary of a meeting held on 7 July 2014 between representatives of Justice for Megrahi and members of the Police Scotland team investigating JFM’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. It has only just become available for publication:]

Present:

Justice for Megrahi (JFM):  Iain McKie; Len Murray.

Police Scotland: Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone; Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone; Detective Inspector Scott Cunningham.

Apologies: James Robertson (JFM)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is second meeting held to facilitate liaison between Police Scotland and JFM in respect of the ongoing investigation by Police Scotland into JFM’s complaint of 9 criminal allegations made in September 2012.

DCC Livingstone introduced the meeting and reiterated the importance of this forum. It was appropriate and necessary for Police Scotland and JFM to have full and frank discussion on related matters and also to provide an update in relation to the 9 criminal allegations. He highlighted this was a unique arrangement which was uncharted and untested.  

DCC Livingstone confirmed that steady progress was being made into investigating  the 9 allegations, with independent legal advice and scrutiny in place to fully support Police Scotland in terms of the complexities of the matters under investigation, and to ensure absolute transparency.

He also confirmed that this and further updates to JFM would be as informative as possible, but highlighted it was not appropriate to provide partial updates, to avoid reporting back on an incomplete basis, particularly where emerging findings have not first been subject to  legal scrutiny and consideration. Ultimately, once all the investigations are completed in relation to all of the allegations then the conclusion and findings will be provided to JFM.

DCC Livingstone confirmed Police Scotland had made a visible and active commitment to resource this as a major investigation, and one that was now well under way with a group of specially trained and experienced resources working to the MIRSAP principles with HOLMES capacity.  

D/Supt Johnstone provided reassurance that the work completed by Mr Patrick Shearer would be a useful foundation to proceed and emphasised the investigative strategy and processes would withstand robust and intense scrutiny.  

DCC Livingstone confirmed that appropriate security measures were in place by way of a confidentiality agreement with resources and alarmed and monitored premises.

JFM were extremely satisfied that they felt they were now being listened to and that progress was being made by Police Scotland, particularly as there was a clear structure, process and plan in place.  JFM reiterated that they had trust in the Police to fully investigate the complaints.  

D/Supt Johnstone provided a comprehensive update on each strand of the investigation so far, and focussed on the processes and procedures adopted. Significant progress has been made with the enquiry moving apace through detailed research and analysis, with the 9 criminal allegations had been separated into 5 categories as part of the overarching investigative strategy.

D/Supt Johnstone explained that the process adopted ensured a full and forensic examination of all relevant material was being undertaken and considered in respect of relevant legislation and guidance, and also in the context of evidence presented by experts and in academic reports. This approach is essential to satisfy the necessary level of scrutiny required in terms of the specific elements of this allegation.

Some categories will take considerable time due to a number of documents being in paper format and not on any electronic database.

A senior analyst has been appointed to critically analyse and examine all relevant material in what can only be described as a particularly complex area of work. JFM acknowledged the scale of the complexities of the different aspects of the enquiry, and reinforced their commitment to cooperate fully and share, where appropriate, experience and knowledge. This offer is welcomed by Police Scotland.

Brief discussion followed between both parties in acknowledgement of the recent submission of a fresh appeal to the SCCRC.

JFM re-iterated their continuing lack of trust in the Crown Office. DCC Livingstone confirmed the Crown Office had primacy over the live investigation to provide the appropriate direction as deemed necessary. However, it was highlighted that although the findings of the JFM investigation would be initially reported to the DCC Crime, with further independent legal scrutiny, ultimately these could be reported to Crown Office.  

It was stressed by Police Scotland that there was complete transparency and independence in respect of the investigative work being progressed, which was fully acknowledged and complimented by JFM.

JFM confirmed the three aforementioned meeting representatives present at the meeting on 2nd April 2014 will provide the role of ‘JFM Liaison Group’ charged with responsibility for maintaining close police links and liaison.

Agreed by Police Scotland and JFM that they would mutually brief each other where they identified any speculative information or circulations elsewhere in respect of the investigation or the ongoing liaison  between JFM and the police.

DCC Livingstone commented on the latest update provided to the Justice Committee by both parties, and the decision which confirmed the petition remained live and that the Justice Committee would maintain a watching brief.

In conclusion, JFM Liaison Group stated they were totally satisfied with the updates on progress so far, and agreed with the process to hold further meetings every 2 – 3 months, or as appropriate, and that a record of discussions is maintained and circulated to the relevant parties.

Both parties agreed that the discussions had been open, frank and extremely useful, and gave a commitment to build on this positive relationship.

The unravelling of Kenny MacAskill ... and the case against Megrahi

[This is the headline over a review by John Ashton of Kenny MacAskill’s book in today’s edition of the Sunday Herald. It reads as follows:]

It was supposed to be Scotland’s publishing event of the year, former justice secretary Kenny MacAskill’s long awaited account of his controversial decision to release the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Serialised in the Murdoch press and endorsed by former First Minister Alex Salmond, The Lockerbie Bombing looked set to enhance the reputations of MacAskill and the criminal justice system he served.

In the event, the book has made an even bigger splash than expected, but not in the way that he intended. By the time it was published last week, it had plunged the Megrahi case into chaos and left MacAskill looking rattled, if not a little foolish.

The book gives the inside track on the grubby international power play that surrounded his decision to allow the terminally ill Libyan to return home. But it goes much further, answering, according to its dust jacket, “how and why [the bombing] happened – and who was really responsible”. It is here, in his efforts to play sleuth, judge and jury, that MacAskill has come unstuck.

He argues that Megrahi was guilty – a significant player in a much larger plot. One of the book’s few genuine revelations, however, details a secret document which implicates the terror group the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) in the Lockerbie bombing carried out on December 21 1988.

MacAskill in his book identifies who sent the document and who received it - an act strictly forbidden by the law. As the Sunday Herald revealed last week, in publishing such details, MacAskill was in breach of a Whitehall gagging order and very likely, at least in the opinion of the Foreign Office, of the Official Secrets Act. The former Scottish Justice Secretary later admitted that he was ‘unsure’ whether he had broken the act.

MacAskill downplays the letter’s significance, claiming it was sent soon after Lockerbie, and before evidence had emerged to implicate Libya and Megrahi. This is one of the book’s many factual errors. At Megrahi’s second appeal it was revealed that the UK government had seen the letter in September 1996, five years after it had claimed that Lockerbie was a ‘Libyan operation from start to finish’.

Overshadowing these revelations, however, is a single sentence buried among the book’s 322 pages, which reads: “Clothes in the suitcase that carried the bomb were acquired in Malta, though not by Megrahi.”

Its significance rests on the reasoning of the three Law Lords who convicted Megrahi. They concluded that he had sent a bomb concealed within a suitcase on Air Malta flight KM180 from Malta to Frankfurt and that it was later transferred to Pan Am flight PA103 at Heathrow. The case was largely circumstantial, with only two points that directly incriminated Megrahi in the bombing. One was his presence at Malta’s Luqa airport when KM180 was loading and the other was the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci that he resembled the man who bought the clothes packed in the suitcase.

The judgment was clear that the failure to explain how Megrahi had got the bomb on to KM180 was ‘a major difficulty for the Crown case’, however, it accepted that when taken together with other evidence – crucially Gauci’s – the inference that the bomb came from Malta was ‘irresistible.’ 

The most important link in the Crown case, Gauci’s evidence was also the weakest.

The clothes purchaser he described was much older and bigger than Megrahi and there is persuasive evidence that the purchase took place when Megrahi was not in Malta.

As the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission noted when it referred Megrahi’s conviction to the appeal court in 2007, the assumption that Megrahi was the clothes purchaser was critical. Without it, there was insufficient evidence to convict him.

By Monday evening MacAskill, had conceded in two TV interviews that Megrahi’s conviction was probably unsafe, a startling volte face, given that the Scottish government, which he served as justice minister, repeatedly stated that it did “not doubt the safety of the conviction.”

His concession was not lost on the Justice for Megrahi (JfM) campaign group, which believes the Libyan was wrongly convicted. By then they had written to Police Scotland’s Operation Sandwood team, which is investigating allegations of criminal misconduct made by JfM against some of the Crown servants responsible for the conviction.

JfM say MacAskill is an important and compellable witness, and that the police must establish the basis for his claim that Megrahi was not the clothes purchaser.

‘The weaknesses in the identification evidence were well known to the Scottish government when MacAskill, as Justice Secretary, was claiming that the conviction was safe,’ says JfM’s Iain McKie, a former police superintendent who spent 15 years battling the police and Crown Office to clear the name of his daughter Shirley McKie.

‘So what does Kenny know that we don’t that has caused him to change his mind? If any of it was previously secret, then the Crown Office has to explain why it wasn’t disclosed to the defence. Was Mr MacAskill aware of it when as government minister he was declaring the conviction safe and turning down JfM’s petition for an independent public inquiry? Was he in any way misleading or deceiving the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people?’

There is a still more important question: is MacAskill saying publicly what the Crown is saying privately? ‘The book reads,’ says McKie, ‘as if the Megrahi-wasn’t-the-clothes-purchaser-but-was-guilty-anyway line has been fed to him.

“If it was the Crown doing that, then the consequences are immense, because they have a duty to report that to the court, in which case the conviction falls.’

Publicly the Crown Office is sticking to the line that Megrahi’s conviction is safe, but it must be dismayed by MacAskill’s statements, not least, his barely veiled criticism of the secret $2 million reward payment made to Gauci, which the Crown Office tacitly sanctioned.  

MacAskill continues to insist that Megrahi was guilty, but his case is built largely on untested evidence and assertions, and he has sidestepped important exculpatory evidence that has emerged since Megrahi’s conviction. All rather surprising for a former defence lawyer.

This flags another intriguing question: how, given his legal background, could MacAskill have landed himself in such a mess? Did he not realise that revealing details of the document subject to a Whitehall gagging order might be illegal? And did he not foresee the consequences of conceding that Megrahi was not the clothes purchaser?

His book’s subtitle is ‘The Search for Justice’. Ironically, its unintended consequence may be to help achieve justice for Megrahi. 

John Ashton is the author of Megrahi: You are my Jury (Birlinn, 2011) and Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters (Birlinn, 2013). From 2006 to 2009 he worked with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s legal team.

Colin Boyd resigns as Lord Advocate

[On this date in 2006, Lord Boyd of Duncansby QC (Colin Boyd) resigned as Lord Advocate, an office he had held since 24 February 2000, some seven weeks before the Lockerbie trial started at Camp Zeist. An article by Steven Raeburn headed A private life was published some time later on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

There are many polarising figures in the Scottish legal profession. Take Donald Findlay for instance – many adore him while others dislike everything he stands for. Former Lord Advocate Colin Boyd is another such figure. some consider his time as Lord Advocate as one of great leadership while others think quite the opposite. Steven Raeburn speaks to Boyd to talk about his time in charge and his return to private practice.

You could almost be forgiven for believing Colin Boyd had retired. Or emigrated. Or died. Such is the contrast in his public profile since stepping down as Lord Advocate in 2006, after a six year tenure that saw him dodging bullets on an almost daily basis, as the twin firestorms of the Lockerbie debacle and the Shirley McKie fingerprints fiasco unfolded in the glare of the public arena. His stint in the Lord Advocate’s role had been the longest in modern times, and instead of stepping down and onto the bench, suitably bewigged as a High Court judge – the traditional destination of retiring senior law officers – Boyd instead went into private practice as a solicitor with Scotland’s largest firm, Dundas and Wilson.

Such was the character of Boyd’s time as Lord Advocate that both the timing of his departure and his destination were themselves subject to criticism and accusation. Nowadays, away from the public gaze he can be found shepherding conferences on his preferred area of practice, public law, or quietly ensconced in his Edinburgh office. As the first former Lord Advocate to make this transition – precisely reversing the path of his successor into the role – how is he adjusting to ordinary life behind a desk?

“There are two shifts,” he says. “One is from being a law officer, Lord Advocate, and then from being an advocate to being a solicitor. Occasionally I think “What is happening”, and I used to enjoy some of the perks that went with the job. But I don’t miss being Lord Advocate.”

Unless you are a masochist with a particular love of front page criticism, it is easy to see his point. Six years in the role had given him ownership and responsibility for some of the most significant state legal decisions that any incumbent is likely to see, with the ripple effect still likely to be felt for years to come.

“I had done long enough as Lord Advocate. I would have gone earlier had it not been for certain events, and it was time for me to move on and change.”

“Certain events” is an interesting euphemism for the cumulative stains on Scottish justice left by events such as the outcome of the Surjit Singh Chokhar trial – following which two independent reports identified failings in the way the case was handled by the police and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service; the Lockerbie trial, returned to the High Court after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission adjudged that a miscarriage of justice may have taken place; and the Shirley McKie crisis, which questioned not only the efficacy of the Scottish Criminal Records Office, but the integrity of the police and the entire Crown Office administration of justice, that seemed unable to admit the possibility of a mistake, whilst failing to bring in a solid conviction in the murder of Marion Ross. The disturbing links between the evidential processes in both cases raised deeper, more disturbing questions about accountability and decision making in the heart of the Scottish Justice system. Boyd was not in office at the genesis of these events, but was responsible for many of the key decisions and most of the execution as they unfolded.

Less noticed during his six years were the introduction of the Sexual Offences (Procedure and Evidence) Act 2002, which aimed to minimise the distress caused to victims of rape testifying against their attackers, and the Bonomy reforms to the High Court, which have largely been welcomed as their effects have filtered through the judicial process. The reforms to the administration of justice appear to be the aspects of his tenure he is most keen to reflect upon.

“When I took over in 2000, I was faced almost immediately with the Lockerbie trial, and that really consumed my first year or so as Lord Advocate,” he says.

“Thereafter, there was a clear need to set about restructuring and modernising the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. That took a period of time. Once we embarked, we saw it is an on going process. There will never be a time when you can sit back and say it is fixed.”

Notwithstanding the scale of progress achieved in this area, Boyd nevertheless raised a few eyebrows by choosing to enter private practice, rather than the traditional route to the bench at the expiry of his term. The move was perceived by some as an attempt to find a safe harbour while the twin storms of Lockerbie and McKie blew. Boyd acknowledges that the level of press interest was a prominent factor at this time.

“I was the longest serving Lord Advocate for over 100 years. The workload for the Lord Advocate had gone up markedly, and the degree of scrutiny to which I was subject had increased very considerably.”

“I didn’t want to become a judge at this stage, and I didn’t want to go back to the bar and start a practice again. It seemed to me to be a good move to revert to being what I started out in professional life, a solicitor.”

Boyd’s careful modifier suggests that a place on the bench may be an ambition of his that has been merely postponed, rather than cancelled, and it seems likely that a place amongst the elite of the High Court remains his most likely final berth.

“I have never ruled out being a judge as an option. For a variety of reasons – some of them personal and some of them to do with my public profile when I went – I didn’t think it was the right thing for me to do at this stage. [RB: Boyd’s appointment as a judge of the Court of Session and High Court of Justiciary was announced on 1 June 2012.]

“The days when a Lord Advocate could appoint himself as a judge have gone, so I would have had to apply to the Judicial Appointments Board. One of the inhibiting features of that is that, with the best will in the word, it might have got out that I had made an application whilst Lord Advocate, and that might have undermined my position as Lord Advocate. I didn’t think that that would be good. I have no plans to make an application at the moment, and I am fully committed to Dundas and Wilson. I would never rule it out as a possible option for the future.”

Whatever his future plans, it is likely that Colin Boyd will never escape the three pronged shadows of Lockerbie, McKie and Chokhar which are likely to form his legacy, despite his body of achievement and efforts at reform. His successor, Elish Angiolini has firmly established herself as a Lord Advocate of considerable reach and power, although it is too early in her tenure to draw conclusions on her overall impact. In retrospect, Boyd remains positive about his time in the role.

“I do take some pride in the achievements of the restructuring and reforms that we have made, and I came to a point that I thought it was time now that somebody else took up the challenge.”

As others see him

Colin’s wealth of experience and his reputation for innovation were of huge appeal to Dundas & Wilson. His background in planning law and expertise in constitutional law have proved to be an excellent fit with what we were already doing with the public law initiative, and allowed us to pool a wide range of knowledge into a specialist public law practice, capable of tackling very complex, cross-disciplinary infrastructure projects. To move from the Bar into private practice was seen by some as an unexpected change of direction, but it makes perfect sense for D&W and our clients, as well as providing a new challenge for Colin’s considerable talents. Mike McAuley, Chairman of Dundas & Wilson

I always liked him, though. He seemed consistently courteous and reasonable. He was so softly spoken and self-effacing that when he was Solicitor General and we met at some Law Society do, I thought he said he was with the Solicitors Journal. I said, "Solicitors Journal?" and he said, "Solicitor-General" apologetically, as though it was his fault I hadn’t heard him, and not my fault for failing to recognise a senior law officer. This form of modesty is rare at the bar and endearing. Anonymous

Colin Boyd tried to balance what was known to his prosecution team of the famous ‘CIA telegrams’ in the court at Zeist, in the knowledge that the ‘star’ prosecution witness (Giaca) was also a worthless CIA quizzling. His struggles to meet his clear duty to truth and justice and fair dealing with the court and the defence, made a ‘rabbit in the headlights’ look cool and sagacious. Meantime his predecessor in office had made the wise choice of lolloping off to the safety of a secure burrow in the nick of time. Dr Jim Swire

Colin Boyd is a lawyer of the greatest intellect, ability and integrity. He is a man of principle. Despite his understated and modest demeanour he really is a very radical lawyer, a moderniser with a challenging vision for the future of the legal system and for the profession in Scotland. Elish Angiolini, Lord Advocate

As far as Scotland is concerned, he might as well have had a Union Jack shell suit and bowler hat. When it came to the Skye Bridge, he maintained a false line by saying the tolling licence had been examined and found to be in order. It wasn’t found to be in order. He took us absolutely nowhere and didn’t penetrate my consciousness in any positive way. Robbie The Pict

Colin Boyd took a thoughtful approach to every part of his work, always seeking to uphold the fundamental principles of Scottish Justice while being prepared to promote radical changes to improve the day to day operation of the system. Colin was not one for self promotion, and his quiet manner sometimes hid a keen sense of humour. I am glad that I had the opportunity to work with him. Cathy Jamieson, Former Justice Minister

I believe that history will view Colin Boyd’s reign as Lord Advocate as a shameful period where the independence of the Lord Advocate was sacrificed to the will of his political masters.

Two cases dominated his tenure – the Lockerbie Bombing and the Shirley McKie case. In both cases he stands accused of weakness and vacillation in the face of political pressure and a complete failure to act as, ‘the watchdog for justice’ – the role assigned to him by Lord McCluskey.

His dramatic overnight resignation in October 2006 has been seen by some as the captain jumping ship to save his skin. I hope that this accusation will be thoroughly tested during the planned judicial enquiry into my daughter’s case and in any future enquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. Iain A J McKie

Police came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2011.

Scottish Sunday Express on the Aljazeera documentary

[What follows is the text of a report by Ben Borland that appeared in yesterday's Scottish edition of the Sunday Express:]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted on the basis that he bought clothes from Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, including a grey men’s Slalom shirt. The clothing was then packed in a suitcase with the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103, killing 270 on December 21, 1988.

The charred remains of the shirt were crucial to the prosecution, as a forensic scientist found a piece of circuit board from the bomb embedded in the collar which first led investigators to Libya, and ultimately Megrahi.

However, it has now emerged that clothing manufacturers in Malta told Scottish police in January 1990 that the shirt recovered from the crash site was in fact a boy’s size.

Campaigners have stepped up calls for an inquiry after the claims surfaced in a documentary broadcast on Thursday by Arab TV network Al Jazeera but seen by only a handful of Scottish viewers. [RB: The programme can be watched on You Tube here.]

In it, Scotland’s former Lord Advocate also accepted that Gauci, the main prosecution witness, was paid $2million to give evidence against Megrahi. Scottish private investigator George Thomson tracked down shirt manufacturers Tonio Caruana and Godwin Navarro in Malta. They recalled being shown a fragment of shirt by DC John Crawford and telling him, independently of each other, that it was a boy’s shirt

Speaking to the Sunday Express yesterday, Mr Navarro, 76, said: “I stand by my statement. I believe it is a boy’s shirt because of the size of the pocket and the width of the placket, where the button holes are.”

Retired Strathclyde Police superintendent Iain McKie, now a campaigner against miscarriages of justice, said: “The fact that the witnesses say it was a boy’s shirt and not an adult shirt seems to me quite critical.”

He said that if it was a boy’s shirt, then it cannot be the same one purchased from Gauci by the man he later identified as Megrahi – destroying the “evidence chain”.

Supt McKie said the latest claims added weight to calls for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction.

He added: “The whole chain of evidence has been totally and utterly shattered. It is looking more and more like the police came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence.”

The programme, Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber, also alleged that a piece of the shirt had been altered, as it is clearly a different shape in two police photographs.

However a spokesman for the Crown Office said yesterday that the matter was easily explained. He said: “The fragment of cloth alleged to have been removed from the shirt was examined by the scientists and is referred to in the forensic science report. It is clearly a separate fragment.”

But Fife-based Mr Thomson stood by his claims. He said: “In January 1990 they realise that what they have is a fragment of a boy’s shirt, while Gauci is saying he sold a gents’ shirt.

“The reason for people saying this is mainly down to the size of the pocket and lo and behold the next thing a fragment of the pocket has been removed.”

The documentary is the latest foreign TV show to expose doubts in Scotland’s handling of the case.

Dutch filmmaker Gideon Levy won the Prix Europa for the best current affairs programme of 2009 for Lockerbie Revisited, which has never been broadcast in Britain.

Slalom shirt as dodgy as the timer fragment?

[What follows is taken from an article published on this date in 2011 in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Express:]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted on the basis that he bought clothes from Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, including a grey men’s Slalom shirt. The clothing was then packed in a suitcase with the bomb that brought down Pan Am 103, killing 270 on December 21, 1988.

The charred remains of the shirt were crucial to the prosecution, as a forensic scientist found a piece of circuit board from the bomb embedded in the collar which first led investigators to Libya, and ultimately Megrahi.

However, it has now emerged that clothing manufacturers in Malta told Scottish police in January 1990 that the shirt recovered from the crash site was in fact a boy’s size.

Campaigners have stepped up calls for an inquiry after the claims surfaced in a documentary broadcast on Thursday by Arab TV network Al Jazeera but seen by only a handful of Scottish viewers.

In it, Scotland’s former Lord Advocate also accepted that Gauci, the main prosecution witness, was paid $2million to give evidence against Megrahi.

Scottish private investigator George Thomson tracked down shirt manufacturers Tonio Caruana and Godwin Navarro in Malta. They recalled being shown a fragment of shirt by DC John Crawford and telling him, independently of each other, that it was a boy’s shirt.

Speaking to the Sunday Express yesterday, Mr Navarro, 76, said: “I stand by my statement. I believe it is a boy’s shirt because of the size of the pocket and the width of the placket, where the button holes are.”

Retired Strathclyde Police superintendent Iain McKie, now a campaigner against miscarriages of justice, said: “The fact that the witnesses say it was a boy’s shirt and not an adult shirt seems to me quite critical.”

He said that if it was a boy’s shirt, then it cannot be the same one purchased from Gauci by the man he later identified as Megrahi – destroying the “evidence chain”.

Supt McKie said the latest claims added weight to calls for the Scottish Government to set up an independent inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction.

He added: “The whole chain of evidence has been totally and utterly shattered. It is looking more and more like the police came to a conclusion and then looked for evidence.”

The programme, Lockerbie: The Pan Am Bomber, also alleged that a piece of the shirt had been altered, as it is clearly a different shape in two police photographs. (...)

[George Thomson] said: “In January 1990 they realise that what they have is a fragment of a boy’s shirt, while Gauci is saying he sold a gents’ shirt.

“The reason for people saying this is mainly down to the size of the pocket and lo and behold the next thing a fragment of the pocket has been removed.”

Pan Am Flight 103: Was Lockerbie bomber really guilty?

[This is the headline over an article by Alasdair Soussi published today on the Aljazeera website. It reads in part:]

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of the deadly bombing, but many believe his conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

To this day, Megrahi, who died in May 2012 protesting his innocence, remains the only person convicted of bringing down the American-bound airliner with a smuggled bomb, which, detonating 38 minutes into its flight from London, flung victims and debris over an 81-mile corridor covering 845 square miles.

Yet, Megrahi's January 31, 2001, conviction, his controversial release by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds due to illness in August 2009, and even his death in Libya from cancer three years later, have all failed to put to rest a murder case that remains one of the most contentious in modern criminal history.

Indeed, as the debate between those who maintain that Megrahi was guilty as charged and those who contend that he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice rages on, for many the case has not limited itself to a battle of evidence alone. It has also seen Scotland and its justice system put through years of unwarranted hardship - which has taken its toll.

"I think we should finally put to bed all the conspiracy theories about Lockerbie, which have occupied a great deal of time and space over the last 20 years maybe," said Magnus Linklater, a prominent Scottish political commentator who has become a noted critic of those advocating Megrahi's innocence.

Linklater told Al Jazeera that those who promote the notion of the Libyan's innocence - and the innocence of Libya itself in the Lockerbie bombing - are "misguided". (...)

The main focus of Linklater's wrath - and that of others who share his views - is Scottish-based Justice for Megrahi (JFM), an organisation that has called into question Megrahi's guilt - and is calling for a public inquiry into the bombing.

It makes no apology for pushing its line that Megrahi's conviction may constitute one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in modern legal history.

Len Murray, a retired Scottish criminal court solicitor and committee member of the group, told Al Jazeera that any notion that the case against Megrahi was "overwhelming", "could not be further from the truth".

"It is worth bearing in mind that while the three [Scottish] judges [who tried the case] were experienced judges, judges in our High Court have never ever had to determine guilt or innocence - that's always left to the jury," he added. "But, when for the first time in modern legal history, it's left to three judges, they get it appallingly wrong.

Many observers share this view. (...)

JFM (...) contends that, far from being conspiracy theories, the weight of evidence casting doubt on the Libyan's guilt has been arrived at convincingly.

Retired police officer Iain McKie, who is also a JFM committee member, told Al Jazeera that his two JFM colleagues, signatory John Ashton and committee member Morag Kerr, authors of Megrahi: You Are My Jury and Adequately Explained by Stupidity? - Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies respectively, had backed up their various assertions - which have become central to the group's miscarriage of justice case - with hard evidence.

"Scotland's shame is quite clearly the way the whole affair has been conducted from the beginning - from the investigation, the prosecution, the judicial process and the aftermath. That's Scotland's shame," added McKie.

Supporting Linklater's position is the continuing work of Police Scotland.

It told Al Jazeera that Lockerbie "remains a live investigation" - and that, "along with the Crown Office", it was "committed to working with our colleagues at the FBI, the Department of Justice and the US Attorney's Office in Washington DC to gather any information or evidence that identifies those who acted along with al-Megrahi to commit this despicable act of terrorism".

Yet JFM is itself awaiting the final report of Operation Sandwood - Police Scotland's investigation of nine allegations of criminality levelled by the group at Crown, police and forensic officials who worked on the Lockerbie case. JFM is publicly calling for the inquiry’s final report to be assessed by an independent prosecutor.

As Lockerbie itself remains a live case, JFM awaits the results of Operation Sandwood and continues to campaign against the findings of the 15-year-old verdict, the events of December 21, 1988, will continue to cast a very long shadow.