Pan Am 103 relative questions MacAskill's evidence to MSPs

[This is the headline over an exclusive report just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

Matt Berkley, whose brother died on Pan Am 103 in 1988 has questioned the accuracy of evidence Kenny MacAskill gave to MSPs in Parliament and to the Justice Committee.

Berkley says evidence about the prison visit and the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement question the propriety of Mr MacAskill's choice to delay the transfer decision until Megrahi abandoned his appeal.

He also asks how the Lord Advocate failed to give correct legal advice.

"Contrary to Mr MacAskill's statements, there appears to be no evidence supporting a claim by Mr MacAskill to two parliamentary inquiries that Jack Straw committed Mr MacAskill to taking representations from this prisoner on transfer,” Berkely told The Firm.

“A question arises as to whether Mr MacAskill followed due process in what he described as a 'quasi-judicial' decision. The problem may bolster concerns that Mr MacAskill was negligent in failing to deal with the decision promptly. He might reasonably have been expected to take care to avoid tempting a prisoner to abandon his appeal, especially when the prisoner was in such obviously political circumstances."

MacAskill told the Justice Committee on 1 December 2009 that: "Jack Straw made it clear that, because this was the first situation in which a Government made an application, the prisoner should be given the opportunity to make representations."

Those statements, says Mr Berkley, appears to have no support, and that Mr Straw did not make those claims.

"What Mr Straw committed the UK to does not appear to be what Mr MacAskill followed,” Berkley said.

“Mr MacAskill made an invitation to the prisoner without advising him of an intention to transfer. Mr MacAskill never reached the stage of having any such intention, let alone telling the prisoner. More importantly, perhaps, the context of Mr Straw's commitment appears to be about something else: human rights of prisoners about to be transferred against their will, not those who had already said they wanted to go.

"Mr MacAskill repeated similar claims to the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee and Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee."

Mr MacAskill has been asked to repond to Berkley's claims.

[I do not know what, if any, advice about procedure Jack Straw gave to Kenny MacAskill. But it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that if, in reaching his decisions on prisoner transfer and compassionate release, Kenny MacAskill proposed to hear representations from Lockerbie relatives, natural justice required him also to hear representations from Abdelbaset Megrahi. And if the relatives were to be allowed to make representations in person and not merely in writing, Megrahi would need to be accorded the same opportunity. Any other approach would have made a decision by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to refuse either prisoner transfer or compassionate release gravely vulnerable to judicial review. Nothing said or not said by Jack Straw affects this crucial point.

It is, of course, true that there was absolutely no legal reason why Kenny MacAskill should have decided to deal with the Libyan Government's application for prisoner transfer concurrently with Megrahi's application for compassionate release. This was a grave blunder and the unnecessary linkage gave rise to the problems over abandonment of the appeal and what MacAskill said about abandonment (or was understood by Megrahi to have conveyed) during their meeting in HM Prison Greenock.]

Why as LibDems we oppose our party’s stance on freed Libyan

[The following are two letters published in today's edition of The Herald.]

1.

I wish to state, as a Liberal Democrat, that I think Kenny MacAskill's decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on licence was right. I believe Mr MacAskill when he says he was not party to any political or commercial deal, and that he did not seek to persuade Megrahi to withdraw his second appeal. I think his visit to Greenock Prison was quixotic and probably unnecessary, but I do not see it as a crucial matter.

I am deeply concerned that neither the Scottish Government nor the three main opposition parties seems to mind what happens about the questions left unresolved by the abandonment of Megrahi's appeal. If the opposition leaders are truly interested in justice for the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie atrocity, they should pay more attention to the views of Dr Jim Swire, who plainly wishes to see answers to the questions raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).

If the Conservatives want to ask the Prime Minister a really challenging question about this affair, they should ask him why the Foreign Secretary repeatedly acted to hinder the progress of Megrahi's second appeal, and why he was so anxious to keep out of the proceedings the papers he said were vital to the security interests of the UK and an unnamed foreign power.

When the Scottish Parliament debates this affair next Wednesday, I for one will be very disappointed if the main opposition parties do not address the matter of how the doubts raised by the SCCRC are to be resolved. It is clear that none of the governments involved wishes to see these questions addressed.

The SCCRC, in effect, said the Court of Appeal should consider whether the circumstantial evidence on which Megrahi was convicted was reliable. We do not know what the court would have ruled. If it had quashed the conviction, there would have had to be an investigation into how unreliable evidence had been brought into the original trial. Was it just an unfortunate accident? Or was it deliberately procured? These are appalling questions. It is leaving them unresolved that brings shame on Scotland.

Dr Christopher Mason, Liberal Democrat Glasgow City Councillor, City Chambers, George Square, Glasgow.

2.

As a Liberal Democrat party member, I may be breaking ranks, but I can only answer in the affirmative the core question about the political or quasi-judicial decision of Kenny MacAskill to release Megrahi; that is, did Mr MacAskill take the right decision and for the right reason (compassion)?

The only criticisms I have of Mr MacAskill are the advance publicity given to his visit to Greenock Prison and his suggestion that Megrahi's cancer is a sentence "imposed by a higher power", a notion repugnant to me as a strict ethical monotheist and, therefore, as a liberal in all things. However, such are side issues in relation to the core question.

As for criticisms from the US, I would suggest that successive regimes there are in no position to challenge the Scottish justice system. The US federally and in 37 of its states continues to practise the barbarity of capital punishment. There is also a gun culture and a lack of even-handedness in the administration of justice. The US regimes have also condoned the use of torture in interrogating terrorist suspects, a procedure backed, in a recent opinion poll, by a significant percentage of US citizens, including a majority of Republican voters.

I would suggest that priority should now be given to answering the many unanswered questions about the mass murder at Lockerbie in 1988, given the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in Megrahi's case. And I would support suggestions that decisions on prisoner release should be taken judicially rather than politically or quasi-judicially.

Dr Alexander S Waugh, Banchory, Kincardineshire.

[Letters from Americans, expressing diverse views on Abdelbaset Megrahi's repatriation, can be read here.

The letters on the subject in The Scotsman (largely supportive of Kenny MacAskill's decision) can be read here.]

Justice Secretary to meet Megrahi over repatriation

[What follows is the text of a report published on The Scotsman website on this date in 2009:]

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is to meet the Lockerbie bomber to discuss his possible transfer home to Libya to serve out the rest of his prison sentence.

The Scottish Government confirmed yesterday that it had received a request from Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to meet Mr MacAskill to put his case. A meeting is likely to take place "soon", probably in Greenock prison, where Megrahi, who has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, is being held.

Megrahi was convicted in 2001 for the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, in which 270 people died.

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary feels it is right to hear from all the people who would be affected by the decision to ensure he has the best possible information on which to base any decision."

The transfer application, which was submitted in May, normally takes around 90 days to complete. A decision from Mr MacAskill, who has vowed to ignore political and economic considerations, is expected by mid-August.

It is separate to a second appeal against his conviction from Megrahi being considered by the Scottish courts. A decision on this has been delayed until the autumn due to the illness of one of the judges.

In determining whether to allow the transfer, Mr MacAskill has also sought the views of the British and American families of victims of the attack, as well as that of US attorney-general Eric Holder.

Mr MacAskill said last month: "The Lockerbie air disaster remains the most serious terrorist atrocity committed in the United Kingdom. I am aware of the pain and grief still being experienced by many people whose lives were affected by it both here in Scotland and across the world."

Megrahi's case was raised by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, when he met Gordon Brown at last week's G8 summit in Italy, but the Prime Minister told him it was a matter for the Scottish Government.

[RB: Commentary on the MacAskill visit to Megrahi can be found here.]

Why Megrahi dropped the appeal

[This is the heading over a section of an article by Lucy Adams that was published in The Herald on the occasion of the publication of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury. It reads as follows:]

CONTEXT: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had two possible routes out of Greenock jail in August 2009: a prisoner transfer application for which he first had to drop his appeal, or compassionate release because of his prostate cancer. The latter route did not demand that he drop his appeal, in contrast to the former. In the event, he ended his appeal, yet the PTA was turned down, and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill instead granted compassionate release. The chain of actions has always been a mystery, leaving those who believe in Megrahi’s guilt to see his decision as confirmation of their views. Why would an innocent man not pursue an appeal against conviction that he had waited years to begin? Now, for the first time, Megrahi claims that he was pressured to drop the appeal by Mr MacAskill personally through diplomatic channels.

EXTRACT: "On 10 August [2009] MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister [Abdel Ati] Al-Obeidi. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day time limit for considering the prisoner transfer application had passed and, although I had some vocal public supporters, MacAskill was coming under considerable pressure to reject both applications. After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal. He [MacAskill] said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me to be clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT:  Mr MacAskill, who was not contacted in advance of today's book publication, has always said he could not interfere in the judicial process. If Megrahi's version of events is true, it will prove very damaging to the minister, who has repeatedly distanced himself from any appeal which, if it had gone ahead, could have been a massive embarrassment to the Scottish legal system. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had already found six grounds on which Megrahi’s conviction was potentially unsafe.

Lockerbie families' anger as bomber al-Megrahi gets ministerial visit

Lockerbie victim families expressed anger today after the Scottish Justice Secretary made an unprecedented visit to the bomber in prison as speculation grew that he could be returned to Libya.

Kenny MacAskill met with Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, at Greenock Prison, as part of ongoing deliberations about his future. It is thought to be the first time a senior Holyrood minister has visited a convicted killer in jail.

In May, Libyan authorities applied for al-Megrahi's repatriation under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer deal agreed by Tripoli and the UK. That request was followed last week by a separate application for al-Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds. He is suffering from prostate cancer and his condition is now said to be terminal. (...)

Supporters are hoping the Libyan will be granted compassionate release in order to allow the continuation of his latest attempt to clear his name. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court two years ago on six points that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. The first stage of the appeal has already been heard in Edinburgh, but no ruling is expected until the autumn as one of the judges presiding over the case has had to undergo heart surgery.

Pursuing a prisoner transfer, on the other hand, would force al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal. The terms of the deal permit deliberations, but forbid a final decision on the request while legal proceedings are taking place. Reports yesterday suggested that al-Megrahi is now moving towards agreeing to drop the appeal, clearing the way for him to serve the rest of his sentence in Libya. (...)

American victims' families are thought to be considering a judicial appeal if Scotland agrees to a prisoner transfer.

Kathleen Flynn, from New Jersey, who lost her son JP in the atrocity, said: "When are we going to come to the conclusion that what happened happened and we're going to punish the people who did it?

"My feeling is that when someone has committed a crime as serious as his, why would you decide he should go someplace else? He should be punished in the country that he performed the crime in."

Mrs Flynn also dismissed claims that the Libyan's health is deteriorating.

"My husband had prostate cancer," she said. "He had it 10 years ago and he is still alive and well 10 years later."

Christine Grahame, the SNP MSP for the South of Scotland, who visited al-Megrahi in jail in June, argued that the Libyan should be given compassionate release.

"The trouble with a prisoner transfer is it will never be resolved through the Scottish courts," she said.

"The appeal must proceed and justice be done and seen to be done."

She also rejected suggestions that Mr MacAskill's visit set a "dangerous precedent."

She added: "I think it's appropriate that when someone's considering what's to happen to someone who's terminally ill and in prison that all aspects are examined."

[From a report just posted on the website of The Times.]

Holyrood committee splits over handling of Megrahi release

[This is the headline over a report posted earlier today on the website of The Guardian. It reads in part:]

MSPs on justice committee unable to agree on key questions regarding Lockerbie bomber's return to Libya

An influential Holyrood committee has failed to reach any firm conclusions about the Scottish government's handling of the Lockerbie affair after it split down party lines.

MSPs on the justice committee were unable to agree on key questions at the heart of the release last August of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, despite its becoming the biggest political and legal controversy in the 10-year history of the devolved government.

The committee was divided on whether the Libyan government was legally able to apply for Megrahi to be repatriated under a prisoner transfer deal because legal cases were outstanding, and it failed to agree on whether Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, was right to meet Megrahi in Greenock prison.

It also was split on whether MacAskill had properly listened to the views of the relatives of the 270 victims of the bombing in 1988, and on whether the minister correctly interpreted the Scottish prison service rules on compassionate release.

On the crucial issue of the quality of the medical evidence that Megrahi had only three months to live – he is still alive but is said to be very weak – the three Labour members and Tory chair of the committee said MacAskill should have had a second opinion.

The three Scottish National party members disagreed. (...)

After Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat members of the committee outvoted the SNP's three members, the committee was able to conclude that MacAskill was wrong to visit Megrahi in Greenock prison, to criticise his handling of the prisoner transfer application and to question his judgement on compassionate release.

Bill Aitken, the Tory MSP and committee convenor, said: "This has been an unusual exercise for the justice committee, and it is fair to say it has been quite a divisive one.

"[There] were some points on which we could all agree, including the need for greater clarity about the status of the Scottish prison service guidance that sets out the criteria for compassionate release.

"I believe this is a useful report that sets out fairly the arguments on all the main issues that arose in the inquiry. It will now be for MSPs and others with an interest in this issue to read the report and make up their own minds."

[The account in the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm can be read here, that in The Scotsman can be read here, that in The Times here and that in The Daily Telegraph here.

The full report of the Justice Committee is available here.]

Lockerbie bomber could be free in days as Justice Minister prepares for face-to-face meeting

[This is the headline over a story by Tom Hamilton in today's edition of the Daily Record, one of Scotland's largest-circulation tabloids. It reads in part:]

The Lockerbie bomber could be freed and flown home within days.

Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill will meet dying Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, 57, in his cell at Greenock Prison today.

He will then make a decision on whether to repatriate the Libyan, who has advanced prostate cancer, on "compassionate grounds".

If MacAskill recommends Megrahi's release he will be flown to Tripoli within a week, the Record understands from senior legal and diplomatic sources. (...)

Megrahi's outstanding appeal - his second - has been delayed, most recently after one of five judges hearing the case underwent heart surgery - postponing a possible outcome for months.

Megrahi was granted the new appeal more than two years ago on six different points suggesting his conviction may have been a miscarriage of justice. Even if he wins, the relatives of the 189 US victims - many of whom believe he is guilty - may demand a judicial review causing even more delays which he may not survive.

In another bid to free him, Libya applied for the transfer of Megrahi, a married dad-of-five, in May this year.

That followed a 2007 agreement between ex-PM Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi. But for a 'prisoner transfer' to happen Megrahi would have to drop his appeal, effectively admitting he is guilty.

His third option for freedom rests with the compassionate appeal to Scottish ministers. If granted, that would allow him to return home without dropping the appeal of abandoning any legal processes. (...)

MacAskill has been examining the compassionate case in recent days since it was lodged by Megrahi last month.

There is now a growing feeling that Megrahi will be allowed his freedom.

South of Scotland MSP Christine Grahame, who has also met Megrahi twice in recent months, said Scottish Prison Service officials have admitted they have no accommodation to manage him.

She added: "This makes the case for compassionate release absolutely imperative. That option is not subject to judicial review and is the only sensible compromise position in light of the fresh evidence and Mr Megrahi's deteriorating health."

She says if Megrahi dies in prison and is later cleared on appeal, the Scottish justice system would be condemned for having "failed so dramatically".

Margaret Scott, Megrahi's QC, recently told judges his health is deteriorating and he is experiencing a "relentless onset of symptoms".

[There is also a report on the BBC News website on today's forthcoming visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice. It can be read here.]

MacAskill to meet Lockerbie bomber

[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of the Aberdeen-based newspaper The Press and Journal. It reads in part:]

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is to meet Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

Libyan authorities have applied for 57-year-old al Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, to be moved to Libya under a prisoner-transfer treaty between Libya and the UK. Ministers received “formal notification” last Friday that al Megrahi wants to meet Mr MacAskill, a Scottish Government spokesman confirmed yesterday.

The spokesman added: “As part of the process the justice secretary has met UK relatives, he has linked up by video conference to Eric Holder, the US attorney general and the US relatives.

“He has also received a delegation from the Libyan government and will now meet Mr al Megrahi.”

No decision on the prisoner transfer can be made by Mr McAskill while al Megrahi pursues a second appeal against his conviction for the 1988 bombing.

The government is also to seek medical advice as to whether al Megrahi is fit to leave Greenock Prison where he is being held. His lawyer, Tony Kelly, said yesterday: “My client would welcome a meeting so that he can have the opportunity to put his case to Mr MacAskill.”

Although the meeting might not need to be staged in the prison, the lawyer said his client is “ill and in some considerable discomfort”.

Mr Kelly also declined to comment on weekend reports that al Megrahi has handed over a signed document to the Libyan Government agreeing to drop the appeal against his conviction if Mr MacAskill allows him home to Libya. (...)

Lib Dem justice spokesman Robert Brown said the move was unprecedented.

He said: “Nothing like this seems to have happened in the case of the Great Train Robber or the Moors Murders, for example. I fail to see what possible purpose this visit will serve.”

BBC Scotland and the Maltese mistress

[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of the Scottish Review by the editor, Kenneth Roy.  It reads in part:]

I woke up on Monday morning to the exciting headline on the BBC:  Lockerbie bomber Megrahi 'visited Malta for sex'

It has taken 23 years for sex and Lockerbie to become strange bedfellows. We have had the deaths of 270 people, the life sentence imposed on the families of the victims (grief, without parole), the trial in the Netherlands, the disputed conviction, the visit of Kenny MacAskill to Greenock prison, compassionate release, the long campaign to prove Megrahi's innocence, Jim Swire's heroic stoicism, Megrahi's refusal to die. Heaven sakes, the story has everything – except sex. But now it's got that too.

Lockerbie bomber Megrahi 'visited Malta for sex'

What was anyone supposed to make of this? Before reading the text, I assumed that Megrahi must have gone there in search of prostitutes. It is conceivable that Malta runs to one or two. 

It wasn't like this. It seems that Megrahi had an extra-marital relationship with a woman on the island, a woman whom the BBC describes as his mistress. How does BBC Scotland know about all this? Ah. It has now 'seen previously secret documents' – a reference to the 800-page unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in which Megrahi makes a frank confession of his infidelity by way of explanation for his visits to Malta.

But just how secret are these documents? They are all over the place. Indeed they form the basis of John Ashton's book, 'Megrahi: You Are My Jury'. In response to a comment in this column, Mr Ashton has written to me to clarify how he acquired access to the SCCRC report: 'I got to see it with Megrahi’s approval, when I worked alongside his legal team. He allowed me to keep it and gave me his authority to present its contents in the book'. Well, that's clear enough. (...)

Of course there is a bit more innuendo to the story than Baset in bed. There is the suggestion that, since he was allowed to visit the island without a passport, a fact previously known to students of the case, he could have been slipping in and out, able to visit Tony Gauci's shop on any number of occasions to buy the clothes to wrap round the explosive device to blow up the aircraft. On the other hand – always a hand worth inspecting in the Lockerbie case – it could be argued that the existence of the mistress removes any hint of a dark ulterior motive for Megrahi's visits to Malta. 

The recent pattern of events has been fascinating. Mr Ashton's book reveals a huge evidential base pointing to Megrahi's innocence. SR then publishes an article by Mr Ashton disclosing for the first time the heavy involvement of the Scottish police in negotiating three million dollar payouts to Gauci and his brother, negotiations with which the Crown Office was familiar but chose to do nothing about. I wouldn't have called it implicit approval of the deals, but it came close. The Scottish media fail to pick up on Mr Ashton's story. Mr Ashton himself confesses to be mystified by the lack of interest. But the Scottish media still can't see past the terms of the compassionate release and the role of the fall guy, Scotland's justice secretary. The huge evidential base is anyway too boring to examine in detail. Let's just have another go at Kenny. Oh, and here's Megrahi in bed with a woman. Fabulous.

It is now clear that the selective unofficial publication of the SCCRC report is taking this case nowhere. It is a dreadful way for any mature democracy, far less one making such grand claims for the future as Scotland's, to conduct itself. The report must be published in full and be available for scrutiny by fair-minded people of all instincts and persuasions so that an intelligent judgement can be formed. The alternative is the present recriprocal bad-mouthing. 

Is this really how we want Scottish justice to be conducted – by leak and smear?


[The following comes from Justice for Megrahi's secretary, Robert Forrester:]


Congratulations to the BBC, they have finally discovered a sex angle to Lockerbie! That certainly ought to be the clincher which proves once and for all that Megrahi did it. Whatever next? It has taken them till now to publicise the fact that Libyans could go back and forth to Malta without passports. This information was freely available to anyone reading John Ashton's book, 'Megrahi: You are my Jury', a week ago. Think too what it says about DCI Bell's detective skills when he was conducting his investigations on Malta all those years ago and failed to discover this. Perhaps if he and his colleagues hadn't been spending so much time getting "pissed" in celebrations and looking after "wee" Toni Gauci to keep him sweet, they might have, but it's doubtful. The facts remain that there is no evidence for the primary suitcase at either Luqa or Frankfurt, the forensics are shot to hell, anything connected with Gauci is like taking a funfair ride on the ghost train, none of the much trumpeted 'new evidence' has been forthcoming from the NTC (with the exception of Abdel-Jalil's spectacular April Fools' Day joke on Newsnight last year) and the Crown is rapidly recutting its cloth with the BBC chipping. This is a very cheap move on their part. And the biggest problem of all? Any member of a paramilitary/terrorist organisation suggesting such a method as the Crown maintain was used to bring down 103 would be quietly shot as a potential liability. Hoping that an unaccompanied item of luggage could evade detection at 3 international airports and end up in exactly the right location in the hold of 103 so that that a 1lb Semtex charge, detonated by the most primitive of timing devices (which has now been established not to have been employed anyway) would destroy the plane is, frankly, bonkers. These people have been watching far too many Mission Impossible films. While the Crown is chasing its tail, perhaps our esteemed media would serve us better by focusing on the reams of evidential problems surrounding the investigation and the prosecution case against Mr al-Megrahi.

Libyans in talks with MacAskill about fate of Megrahi

Libyan Government officials visited St Andrew's House yesterday for final discussions with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill ahead of his final decision on the fate of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The six-strong delegation from Tripoli then travelled to Greenock Prison to see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is serving a 27-year sentence for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in December 1988, which left 270 people dead.

The prisoner is appealing his conviction but has now been diagnosed with terminal cancer. In May the Libyan Government applied for the prisoner transfer of Megrahi under a controversial agreement signed with Westminster. Last week Mr MacAskill met Megrahi in prison.

However, for that transfer to go ahead Megrahi would have to first drop his appeal, unless Mr MacAskill decided to release him on compassionate grounds, which could permit the appeal to continue while Megrahi returned to die in his homeland.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We can confirm that a delegation from the Libyan Government met the Justice Secretary today as part of the continuing process started in June to hear representations from relevant parties in relation to Mr Al Megrahi's applications for release. This was a follow- up meeting to help clarify a number of issues and the Justice Secretary will now finalise his considerations over the next few weeks."

Yesterday's was the third meeting between Libyan representatives and the Justice Secretary, who has also met US Attorney General Eric Holder, as well as representatives of the US and UK dead from the flight and those from Lockerbie itself.

Megrahi wants to clear his name through the appeal, which began in April, but he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and it is not known if he will survive the lengthy legal process.

Despite the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referring the case for a fresh appeal two years ago, the process is barely under way.

[This is the text of an article in today's edition of The Herald by the paper's Scottish Political Correspondent, Robbie Dinwoodie. A report on the visit is also to be found in The Sun.]

Vested interests deeply opposed to appeal continuing

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in The Independent on this date in 2009:]

… the only person convicted over the Lockerbie bombing, is expected to learn today that he will be released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds so that he can return to Libya, his homeland.

Al-Megrahi, 57, has prostate cancer and perhaps only three months to live. His fate is in the hands of Kenny MacAskill, Justice Secretary in the Scottish National Party (SNP) administration in Edinburgh. (...)

Al-Megrahi, anxious to spend his final days with his family, has become a pawn in a complex game of international chess. Suspicions that a deal has already been struck were fuelled by reports that he has been sending possessions to Libya from his specially-built cell in Greenock Prison.

In London, ministers dismiss conspiracy theories about a classic fix involving the UK and Scottish governments and Libya. They insist that the decision is purely a judicial one for the Scottish authorities. And yet there seems to be a coalition of overlapping interests pushing for the complicated case to be closed.

For its part, the British Government is reluctant to see the disclosure of further documents from foreign sources which al-Megrahi’s legal team want to be made public. “There are a number of vested interests who have been deeply opposed to this appeal continuing as they know it would go a considerable way towards exposing the truth behind Lockerbie,” claimed Christine Grahame, an outspoken SNP member of the Scottish Parliament who has met al-Megrahi several times in prison. She claims that “new information” would make clear al-Megrahi had nothing to do with the bombing. It might have come to light during an appeal in which the Crown is seeking to lengthen his 27-year minimum sentence.

Ms Grahame said that after the Libyan Government paid $803m in compensation to families of the bombing’s victims, the US and Britain were allowed to invest £800m in Libya’s oil industry. “There are dirty deals here,” she said.

The affair is traumatic for the families of the 270 people who died when Pan Am flight 103 exploded over the Dumfriesshire town of Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, including 189 Americans. Some fear the release of al-Megrahi would mean the truth about Britain’s worst terrorist atrocity being buried forever. While relatives of many of the US victims believe the former Libyan intelligence officer is guilty, several of their Scottish counterparts are not convinced.

They would be alarmed if his release meant the end of their long quest.

With the spotlight on Edinburgh, London’s role has been largely eclipsed. The man who may have started the ball rolling is Tony Blair, on a visit to Col Gaddafi’s famous tent in Libya in 2004, when they broke the ice and agreed to negotiate a prisoner transfer agreement. Another option is for al-Megrahi to serve the rest of his sentence in a Libyan jail, although this is thought less likely than release on compassionate grounds.

What diplomats politely call “choreography” was stepped up last month when Gordon Brown discussed the case with Col Gaddafi at their first meeting, in the margins of a G8 summit in Italy. Their talks also covered oil prices, with Mr Brown expressing concern that the latest spike could choke off global economic recovery. Downing Street is adamant that the Prime Minister stressed he could not intervene in a judicial decision. But one Whitehall source admitted yesterday: “It was clear this case is very, very important to the Libyans.”

No plot would be complete without an appearance by Lord Mandelson. Although Mr Brown’s talks may have been more significant, the ubiquitous Business Secretary discussed the al-Megrahi case with Col Gaddafi’s son during his recent holiday in Corfu.

Yesterday Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, used rather undiplomatic language to make a last-minute appeal to Mr MacAskill for al-Megrahi to remain in prison. She said: “I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced. I just think it is absolutely wrong to release someone who has been imprisoned based on the evidence about his involvement in such a horrendous crime.”

There are suspicions in Scotland that Ms Clinton is playing to the domestic gallery. Alex Salmond, the SNP First Minister, insisted: “There will be no consideration of international power politics or anything else. It will be taken on the evidence in the interest of justice.”

The intense speculation has fuelled criticism of the SNP administration, which has had an unfortunate debut on the world stage. Mr MacAskill has been widely criticised for meeting al-Megrahi in prison on 5 August. That made it personal, and gave the rumour mill about a deal another turn.

Al-Megrahi’s release would provoke new demands by Lockerbie families for an independent inquiry into the bombing. But they are not confident of securing their long-standing aim. “We are back where we started 21 years ago,” said Rev John Mosey, whose daughter Helga, 19, died in the attack.

Crown’s breaches of duty of disclosure

[What follows is the text of a report published in The Independent on this date in 2009:]

The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing today published more documents he claims prove his innocence.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi insisted the move was not meant to add to the upset of the people "profoundly affected by what happened in Lockerbie".

But he added: "My only intention is for the truth to be made known."

Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, was controversially freed from prison on compassionate grounds earlier this year.

He had been serving a life sentence at Greenock prison for the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 in 1998, in which 270 people were killed.

Before his release, the bomber dropped his second appeal against that conviction.

His Scottish lawyers, Taylor and Kelly, said Megrahi remained ill in hospital in Tripoli, and that the documents published on the website www.megrahimystory.net related to his appeal.

In a statement Megrahi said: "I recognise that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland is the only authority empowered to quash my conviction. In light of the abandonment of my appeal this cannot now happen."

However he added: "I continue to protest my innocence - how could I fail to do so?"

Megrahi said much of the material published today was "buttressed by the independent investigations of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission".

It was the commission that referred Megrahi's case back to the courts for its second appeal.

Megrahi - who was convicted of the bombing in January 2001 at a Scottish court convened in the Netherlands - had mounted an unsuccessful appeal in 2002.

But in 2007 the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, sent his case for a subsequent appeal.

Today he said: "The commission found documents which they concluded ought to have been disclosed to my defence."

And he claimed this included a "record of interest in financial reward" by Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold clothing found to have been in the suitcase that contained the bomb.

Megrahi also said the commission had seen documents which should have been given to his defence team at the trial.

He stated: "The commission concluded that the non-disclosure of these documents and other material may have affected the trial process and caused a miscarriage of justice."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill made his decision to free Megrahi "based on the due process of Scots Law" and he "supports the conviction".

He added: "The Scottish Government has already released as much relevant information as possible, and have met with the SCCRC to look at what documentation relating to the appeal could be released by them."

The newly-published papers include claims that Tony Gauci was paid two million dollars (about £1.2m) by US authorities after the trial.

Much of the document published today relates to evidence which, Megrahi's lawyers say, was not produced at his trial.

When the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission sent Megrahi's case to the appeal court, it said doubt had been cast on some of the evidence which helped convict him, in particular evidence relating to his visit to Tony Gauci's shop in December 1988.

New evidence suggested the clothing had been bought before December 6, at a time when there was no evidence that Megrahi was in Malta, said the SCCRC.

And other evidence not available at the trial undermined Gauci's identification of him, it said.

Much of what is published today on the Megrahi website relates to Gauci's identification.

The legal documents by Megrahi's defence team say the SCCRC found material showing Mr Gauci was paid more than two million dollars by the US department of justice after the trial, and his brother Paul Gauci was paid one million dollars (about £600,000).

The SCCR also unearthed a statement made to police by David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, which had not been made available to the defence.

The statement from Mr Wright, who visited Tony Gauci, told of a purchase of clothing by two Libyans in October or November - but the statement was not investigated.

Other material published today also questions the reliability of Mr Gauci's identification of Megrahi.

The "missing evidence" on the identification of Megrahi was not put forward at his trial for a variety of reasons, according to the appeal papers published today by his lawyers.

They blamed both the prosecution for omitting some evidence from the trial - and the defence for not fully investigating the identification evidence.

Other arguments put forward in the documents relate to alleged inconsistencies in identification evidence, and to the possibility of Mr Gauci's recollection being tainted by "prejudicial" publicity.

The previously undisclosed evidence of David Wright was found by the SCCRC.

A friend of Mr Gauci and long-standing visitor to Malta, he called police in November 1989 after seeing TV coverage of Lockerbie which included footage of Mr Gauci's shop.

He told police he visited Mr Gauci in his shop in late October or November 1988, and saw two Libyans buy clothing.

The pair were smartly-dressed, had a lot of money, and bought several items of clothing.

Mr Gauci had referred to them as "Libyan pigs", and the descriptions given by Mr Wright did not resemble Megrahi.

But no further inquiries were made and Mr Wright's statement was not disclosed to the defence, the papers say.

The material showing that Mr Gauci asked for and received payment was also unearthed by the SCCRC, say the papers.

The commission found material showing that, at an early stage, he expressed an interest in receiving payment or compensation.

The material also "indicated" that US authorities offered to make substantial payments to him, that an application for reward money was made after the trial - and that Mr Gauci received "in excess of" 2 million dollars after the appeal, with his brother receiving 1 million dollars.

"The SCCRC states that, at some time after the appeal, the two witnesses were each paid sums of money under the Rewards for Justice programme administered by the US Department of Justice," said the papers.

And none of this had been disclosed to the defence, the papers say.

"The failure to disclose the information that reward monies have been discussed, that offers of rewards related to the witness have been discussed, and that substantial rewards have in fact been paid to the witness, is in breach of that duty to disclose."

Missing answers on release of Megrahi

[This is the headline over a letter from Roger Salvesen in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It is a response to last Sunday's article by Kenny Farquharson. The letter reads as follows:]

Kenny Farquharson has second thoughts on the release of Megrahi ... ; I still have many unanswered questions in my mind.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board had discovered evidence which gave grounds for a second appeal. If Megrahi had been transferred to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement, the appeal would have lapsed. But he was released on compassionate grounds so the appeal could have continued in his absence. But Megrahi specifically asked the Appeal Court to abandon the appeal. Did Kenny MacAskill's visit to Greenock prison have anything to do with this?

Did the grounds for the appeal contain doubts about the safety of the evidence relating to the timing device and the testimony of the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci? If those doubts had been upheld would that have raised questions about the involvement of the CIA in providing evidence to the original trial?

If Megrahi's health had not been a factor and the appeal had proceeded to a conclusion and found the original conviction unsafe, what would have been the reaction in the United States? Dr Jim Swire and others believed the conviction was unsafe.

If MacAskill had invoked the Prisoner Transfer Agreement would Libya have honoured its terms and held Megrahi in a Libyan prison for the remainder of his 27-year term?

And if that requirement was ignored would the UK have been able to secure the return of Megrahi to Scotland to serve out his sentence?

I would love to think these questions will be answered one day, but I fear that is very unlikely.

Al-Megrahi 'pressured to abandon appeal'

[This is the headline over an article by Marcello Mega in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads in part:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was forced to abandon his appeal to secure compassionate release on the grounds of his terminal cancer, a justice department whistleblower claims.

Three senior sources close to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, who has now exceeded the three months he was expected to live by more than ten months, have confirmed the whistleblower's version of events.

Megrahi suddenly dropped his appeal against conviction shortly after the Scottish Government announced he was to be released to return to Libya on compassionate grounds.

It was claimed at the time that the government had made the dropping of the appeal a condition of his release, in order to spare any damage to the reputation the Scottish justice system. The government has always denied the allegations.

The whistleblower's information appeared in an e-mail received last year by the Nationalist MSP Christine Grahame, who met Megrahi after viewing a documentary that convinced her of his innocence. She continues to lobby for justice for him. (...)

The e-mail reads: "The minister seemed set to do the decent thing, allow a dying man to go home and the appeal to continue. However the department has strongly intimated to the Libyans that if Megrahi is to be granted compassionate release he must first drop his appeal. This was the (sic) rammed home to the Libyans at their meeting with the minister yesterday.

"Megrahi is desperate and will do anything to get home, including dropping his appeal, as his prisoner transfer request demonstrates. The department knows it, as does the minister."

Megrahi has always protested his innocence, and the independent Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had referred his case back to appeal.

The SCCRC found there were six grounds for believing that Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice. (...)

It seemed inexplicable that he would abandon his appeal, but sources close to Megrahi have now revealed the chain of events and have confirmed that he was given no choice.

One Libyan source confirmed the meeting mentioned in the e-mail took place.

He said: "Three senior Libyans, including the Minister for Europe Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, met with Mr MacAskill and it was made clear that things would be resolved speedily if he dropped his appeal.

"They left Edinburgh and went direct to Greenock to visit Baset and they told him he had no choice. In fact they gave him no choice. They told him the appeal would be dropped, but that he would soon be home.

"He was not happy about the appeal. Even after he dies, he does not want his offspring to be labelled the children of the Lockerbie bomber."

Two other sources who have maintained close contact with Megrahi since his return to Libya and have been told the story directly by him confirmed the chain of events.

One said: "A few months earlier he'd have fought tooth and nail not to abandon his appeal. But he really did feel so ill he was sure he must die soon and the desire to get home and die with his family round him overtook everything else."

Grahame said: "I suspected inappropriate pressure had been placed on Megrahi and these latest revelations appear to confirm that. This makes the case for a full and thorough public inquiry even more pressing."

A Scottish Government Spokesperson said: "We have absolutely no knowledge of any such e-mail. The Scottish Government had no conceivable interest in the appeal being dropped."

[The Sunday Herald runs a story headlined Government admits Megrahi always had 50/50 chance of living past three months. It makes the earth-shattering disclosure that "a key Government official has now revealed Megrahi stood a 50% chance of living longer than three months. George Burgess, the Government’s former deputy director of criminal law and licensing, who advised MacAskill, said the three-month figure was a 'median survival time', rather than the upper limit of Megrahi’s life expectancy. Median survival time is defined as the time at which half the patients with a disease are expected to be alive and half expected to be dead."

Megrahi: eight key pieces of evidence

[This is the headline over the second batch of material derived from Megrahi: You are my Jury published today on the heraldscotland.com website.  It reads in part:]

Megrahi: You are my Jury, The Lockerbie Evidence is a detailed book, spanning 460 pages, 15 chapters, four appendices, and a six-page glossary. It explores a number of key areas which campaigners will regard as crucial to the case, including eight which relate to previously unseen evidence. Here, chief reporter LUCY ADAMS present extracts from the book and explain why they matter.

1.Why Megrahi dropped the appeal

CONTEXT: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had two possible routes out of Greenock jail in August 2009: a prisoner transfer application for which he first had to drop his appeal, or compassionate release because of his prostate cancer. The latter route did not demand that he drop his appeal, in contrast to the former. In the event, he ended his appeal, yet the PTA was turned down, and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill instead granted compassionate release. The chain of actions has always been a mystery, leaving those who believe in Megrahi’s guilt to see his decision as confirmation of their views. Why would an innocent man not pursue an appeal against conviction that he had waited years to begin? Now, for the first time, Megrahi claims that he was pressured to drop the appeal by Mr MacAskill personally through diplomatic channels.

EXTRACT: "On 10 August MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister [Abdel Ali] Al-Obeidi. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day time limit for considering the prisoner transfer application had passed and, although I had some vocal public supporters, MacAskill was coming under considerable pressure to reject both applications. After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal. He [MacAskill] said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me to be clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT:  Mr MacAskill, who was not contacted in advance of today's book publication, has always said he could not interfere in the judicial process. If Megrahi's version of events is true, it will prove very damaging to the minister, who has repeatedly distanced himself from any appeal which, if it had gone ahead, could have been a massive embarrassment to the Scottish legal system. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had already found six grounds on which Megrahi’s conviction was potentially unsafe.

2. The timer fragment

CONTEXT: At Megrahi's trial at Camp Zeist, it was agreed that the fragment of electrical circuit board found at the Lockerbie crash site [and referred to as PT/35b] came from an MST-13 board manufactured by the Swiss company Mebo and Thuring, its supplier. Mebo revealed that it had sold 20 such timers to the Libyans, and this became a hugely significant part of the case against Megrahi. However, the book claims that new evidence shows the fragment of circuit board found at Lockerbie, which was 100% covered in tin, did not match those in the timers sent to Libya and alleges that the Crown's forensic expert at trial, Allen Feraday, was aware of the disparity but failed to disclose it.

EXTRACT: "On 23 October 2008, at just after 7pm, a member of [Tony] Kelly's [defence] team finally put the crucial question to Bonfadelli [Urs Bonfadelli was responsible for the manufacture of Mebo’s MST-13 boards]: was the circuitry of the MST-13 boards coated with pure tin or a tin/lead alloy? His answer was clear and devastating: all were coated with an alloy of 70% tin and 30% lead. There could be no mistaking this, he said. It was imminently apparent what this meant: if PT/35b’s coating had not been changed by the explosion, then it could not have been made by Thuring and therefore could not have been one of the 20 timers supplied to Libya."

Mr Kelly subsequently instructed two independent experts to see if the heat of the explosion could have turned the fragment’s tin/lead alloy to tin – Dr Chris McArdle, who had 25 years experience in the electronics industry, and Dr Jess Cawley, a metallurgist with over 35 years experience. The book adds: "..McArdle pointed out there was no way that it would have been hot enough for the lead to have evaporated away… Cawley agreed, pointing out that, although plastic explosives of the type used in the Lockerbie bomb produce a flash of intense heat, lead, like most metals, requires a far longer exposure to high temperatures before it would melt, let alone evaporate."

Documents from the Ministry of Defence Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment, disclosed by the Crown just before Megrahi's appeal was dropped, revealed contradictory notes from Mr Feraday saying the coating was pure tin and then "70/30 SN/Pb" (70% tin and 30% lead). The book states: "Had these documents been disclosed to the defence team, they would have provided the basis for a vigorous cross-examination of Feraday."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT: This was one of the most important components of the prosecution case against Megrahi. As the book admits, this was the "golden thread". However, shortly before Megrahi dropped his appeal, his defence team found proof that the timer was not one of those supplied by Mebo to the Libyans. If anything author John Ashton suggests – based on expert opinion – that the circuit board was likely to have been "DIY" rather than commercially manufactured. With this information, the golden thread falls.

3. The Iranian connection

CONTEXT: In the book's preface, Megrahi says he does not want to "point the finger of blame at anyone else", but much of the material drawn together will lead readers to believe that Iran funded the PFLP-GC [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command] to carry out the bombing, in retaliation for the American warship the USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian passenger jet and killing all 300 people on board in 1988. The US apparently mistook it for an F-14 fighter.

EXTRACT: "The most difficult witness [for the defence team] to get to was the PFLP-GC bomb-maker and double agent Marwen Khreesat. Asked about the aim of his October 1988 mission to West Germany, Khreesat was unambiguous: 'It was made very clear to us by Ahmed Jibril [leader of the PFLPC-GC] that he wanted to blow up an aeroplane. This was the whole purpose of being there. Dalkamoni and I travelled to Frankfurt in order to go to the offices of Pan Am to get information about their flight schedules. We did this. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Jibril wanted a Pan Am flight out of Frankfurt blown up.' Although Khreesat remained adamant that his bombs were not of the twin-speaker type used for the Lockerbie bomb, he revealed that Dalkamoni had at least one other radio cassette bomb. If Khreesat was right, here at last was confirmation that the PFLP-GC had at least one twin speaker device in West Germany."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT: The initial investigation into Lockerbie in 1989 all pointed towards the culpability of a German cell of the PFLP-GC. There is much within the book, including the above statement by bomb-maker Marwen Khreesat which appears to confirm this view. There are also notes showing that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher blocked a public inquiry in the bombing and an explanation that politically it was not expedient to fall out with Iran – whose oil was relied upon - in the run-up to the Gulf War against Iraq. A great deal of the evidence incriminating the PFLPC-GC was not disclosed at the original trial or appeal. The heavily referenced allegations in the book make it seem more likely that they were behind the Lockerbie bombing than Libya. To have dismissed the evidence against them at the time raises questions about the role and potential bias of some of the security agencies involved, and the murkiness of the international politics which has always shrouded the Lockerbie case.

4. Reward money and the reliability of witnesses

CONTEXT: In the UK witnesses cannot be paid for their information. However, the book describes in detail how both Tony and Paul Gauci were offered reward money by the American Justice Department. And, we learn for the first time, that this was discussed even before Tony Gauci's first statement. The book also reveals that Edwin Bollier, who ran Mebo and testified against Megrahi, was very interested in "the reward money".

EXTRACT: "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) concluded 'In referring the case on this ground the Commission is conscious of the potential impact of its decision on Mr Gauci who may well have given entirely credible evidence notwithstanding an alleged interest in financial payment. On the other hand there are sound reasons to believe that the information in question would have been used by the defence as a means of challenging its credibility. Such a challenge may well have been justified, and in the Commission’s view was capable of affecting the course of the evidence and the eventual outcome of the trial.'"

The book also reveals that several other witnesses had the possibility of reward money dangled before them: "Lamin [Fhimah's – Megrahi's co-accused, cleared at Camp Zeist] former business partner Vincent Vassalo whom Abdelbaset and Lamin had visited the evening before the bombing. He confirmed that it was his first meeting with Abdelbaset, who had introduced himself by his real name, rather than the one on his coded passport. He described Lamin's shock on learning of the police investigation and his willingness to allow them to search the Medtours office and take his diary. Once the search was finished he said DCI [Harry] Bell [who was in charge of the police investigation in Malta] reminded him that a 'big reward' was on offer for any helpful information he could provide."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT: The fact that Tony Gauci, the Crown's key witness who testified that he saw Megrahi buy specific clothes in his shop which were later identified as having been near the bomb, was even offered a reward raised the concerns of the SCCRC. It undermines his witness statements, which we now know were far more inconsistent and numerous than previously disclosed. The revelation that Bollier and others were offered the possibility of reward money also goes some way towards discrediting the integrity of the investigation itself.

5.Undisclosed evidence

CONTEXT: The SCCRC unearthed numerous statements, police reports and other documents which had never been shared with the defence team. Part of the reason the case was referred back for a fresh appeal was the non-disclosure of evidence. A fascinating part of the book talks about the James Bond-like tales of attempted coups, spying and double agents going on across the world. In particular, it makes reference to an attempted coup in Togo in which timers matching those thought to have been used in the Lockerbie bombing were discovered, and hints at subterfuge and espionage by the American security services and others and details the confusion caused. The prosecution had claimed that there were only 20 Mebo MST-13 timers and that they were sold only to the Libyans.

EXTRACT: "The Commission unearthed potentially significant information about the MST-13 timers found in West Africa. Two timers were recovered from Togo in 1986. Among the documents disclosed to the Commission was a previously confidential memo, produced by [Senior Investigating Officer] Stuart Henderson the month after the interview of Jean Baptiste Collin [the official in charge in Togo], which provided a lengthy overview of the investigation. As the following passage made clear, the West Africa investigations were causing considerable concern. [SIO Henderson wrote]: 'After the recent interview of Collin, it is now more clear than ever that the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the 'boxed MST-13 timer' in Senegal must be clarified beyond doubt. The whole essence of the 'MST-13 timers' is the sole manufacture by the Mebo company in world terms and the explicit distribution to the Libyan ESO. Unless we can consolidate the precise number of MST-13 timers circuit boards manufactured to fit the ‘boxed timers’ and confirm the fact they were distributed, solely to the Libyans, then we have serious problems with our direct evidence. [Collin] inferred that the Americans knew the whole story... Crucially the notes [by DI William Williamson] went on to record that Collin said the timer had been given to an 'intelligence agency'."

To date, at least two documents not disclosed to the defence still remain a secret because the UK Government claims publicising them would be a threat to national security. The book states: "The last of the Commission's Statement of Reasons... was certainly the strangest of the six. It concerned two secret documents, supplied by another country, which members of the Commission’s team had been allowed to view at Dumfries police station in September 2006. They were forbidden from copying them. On 27 April 2007, the Crown Office confirmed to the Commission that they had carefully considered whether or not the documents required to be disclosed to the defence and had concluded they did not. The Statement of Reasons gave only two clues to the documents' contents. The first was an extract from the Crown's 27 April 2007 letter which read 'it has never been the Crown's position in this case that the MST-13 timers were not supplied by the Libyan intelligence services to any other party or that only Libyan intelligence services were in possession of the timers'. The second came in paragraph 25.6 of the Statement which read 'In the Commission's view the Crown's decision not to disclose one of the documents to the defence indicates that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.'"

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT: Since the trial at Zeist, Scots law has been challenged at the Supreme Court and the policy of non-disclosure has had to be changed. A number of appeals have been won on the grounds that important evidence was not shared with defence lawyers. We now know that numerous documents were not disclosed to the Lockerbie defence team. Some were sent to them after the second appeal was dropped. Others may never be shared. Advocates in the past have described the unfairness of partial disclosure as "playing with a stacked deck". This alone could have seen Megrahi acquitted if his appeal had proceeded.

6. Forensics anomalies

CONTEXT The forensics case against Megrahi was critical. The book reveals anomalies, contradictions, and arguments between police, the forensics team, the CIA, and the FBI. It also claims that information was withheld by the CIA and says anomalies later found in the forensic evidence from the Ministry of Defence Royal Armaments Research and Development Establishment "cast doubt on the overall reliability" of some of the forensic reports.

EXTRACT: "Six years after [Dr Thomas] Hayes [of RARDE] testified, a previously secret police memo came to light that contradicted his evidence and stated that a residue test had, in fact, been conducted...Most of the contradictory accounts about how PT/35b was linked to the MST-13 timer were only revealed seven years later, when the Crown’s precognition statements of Feraday, Williamson, Thurman and Orkin were released by the SCCRC. Had the defence known about them at trial, they would have provided the basis for vigorous cross-examinations of the relevant witnesses...

"Viewed in isolation, the individual anomalies surrounding the fragment may have appeared trivial, but together they formed a shroud of suspicion that could not be dislodged. Had they concerned a less important item, they could, perhaps, have been overlooked, but the fragment was easily the most crucial physical evidence in the entire case – the golden thread that linked Abdelbaset to the bomb."

Other items were not contained within the forensic reports – including a small piece of circuit board from the radio cassette bomb found in Dalkamoni's [of the Palestinian PFLPC-GC] car in Germany – something the defence team only learned about years later. The book states: "Whatever lay behind the multiple anomalies, inconsistencies, and omissions, their cumulative effect was to erode the façade of forensic certainty that surrounded the Crown case."

There were other pieces of forensic information not disclosed by the Crown which pointed – again – at the potential involvement of the PFLPC-GC. "Further important forensic information was contained in a Crown precognition statement by Hayes's RARDE colleague Allen Feraday. He revealed that he had been unable to rule out one of the debris items, PI/1588, as being part of a barometric trigger. Given that the PFLP-GC bombs found in Neuss [in the German raid on the PFLPC-GC] were barometric, this was potentially significant."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT This is one of the densest and most complex sections of the book. The details of different dates, reports, and contradictions is confusing but the overall impression is that the scientists and forensics experts involved were working under enormous pressure in very difficult circumstances. There is a sense that the American security services often failed to disclose or delayed disclosure of information to the Scottish police investigating. The overall picture is that non-disclosure of certain forensic information at the trial and the inconsistencies in the forensic reports subsequently seen by the defence team, raise serious questions about aspects of the prosecution's forensic case.

7. The Bedford suitcase

CONTEXT: Ascertaining which suitcase contained the bomb was critical in the initial stages of the police investigation and subsequent forensic work. Much of the investigation focused on where the suitcase was "ingested" – whether it was through the airport at Malta, Frankfurt or Heathrow. Who put it on to the plane and how? According to the Crown, forensic analysis of the fuselage indicated the suitcase containing the bomb was in the second layer of suitcases – indicating it had come from a feeder flight, rather than Heathrow. However, the book reveals that Tony Kelly's review of the evidence focused on a brown hard-sided suitcase seen by baggage loader John Bedford before the Frankfurt feeder flight arrived. At trial, the judges described Bedford as a "clear and impressive witness" but said there were many items of luggage not dealt with in detail in the evidence of the case.

EXTRACT: "Kelly’s team uncovered evidence that, had it been heard at trial, might have denied the judges these get-outs. If the Bedford bag were not the primary suitcase then, since he [Bedford] saw it before the arrival of PA103A [from Frankfurt], it must have been legitimate. By checking the surviving bags and descriptions provided by the victims’ relatives, [Detective Constable Derek] Henderson established the colour and type of all the legitimate Heathrow interline bags. None were brown, hard-sided suitcases...which meant it was almost certainly the primary case."

That information from DC Henderson was not in the list of productions for the original trial. The book states: "Abdelbaset’s draft grounds of appeal claimed that the absence of the Henderson schedules from the trial constituted a 'material irregularity'...'that material evidence supporting the defence was not properly presented and the appellant was denied a fair trial'."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT Subsequent to the trial and appeal, evidence emerged of a break-in at Heathrow the night before the bombing. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the tragedy, has consistently drawn attention to this break-in and campaigned for a full inquiry into what happened. The Crown case was, in part, based on the assertion that Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah, his co-accused, ensured the primary suitcase containing the bomb was on the feeder flight from Malta. The fact the break-in at Heathrow the night before the tragedy only came to light after the trial seems shocking. The fact that UK Governments have refused since 1988 to hold a full public inquiry into the case, even more so.

8.  Why Megrahi used a coded passport when in Malta

CONTEXT: At the trial, the original appeal and indeed in a press release last week, the Crown has always made much of Megrahi’s use in Malta of a false passport under the name Abdusamad.

EXTRACT: "My numerous absences created difficulties at home. Like most Libyan marriages at the time ours was very traditional... she was understandably unhappy about my frequent foreign trips, and would often become upset on learning that one was imminent. I therefore fell into the habit, on shorter trips, of telling her I was visiting people elsewhere in Libya...The Libyan Government had by then introduced a policy of issuing those involved in the importation of embargoed goods with so-called coded passports which concealed their real names and their connections to state bodies. These passports were in no sense forgeries, but were rather official documents issued by the Secretary of Transport and tightly regulated. A further advantage was that it enabled me to leave my normal passport at home, which made it easier to travel abroad without Aisha knowing."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT: Chapter 2 of the book, entitled Before the Nightmare, explains Megrahi’s work importing embargoed cars, soap and cigarettes lighters, and aviation parts. Much of the chapter is in the first person, explaining in detail his course in marine engineering at Cardiff, his first job as a flight dispatcher for Libyan Arab Airlines and his subsequent promotion to controller of operations at Tripoli Airport. It provides a fascinating insight into his life before the indictment but I found it difficult to understand some of his justifications for lying to his wife as he suggest above. It might seem easier to believe if he said he had been having an affair. However, it may be difficult to understand because it is hard to relate to what it must have been like to live in a country under such strict trade sanctions as Libya had at the time.