James Robertson on Megrahi book (and Peter Fraser)

[What follows is a review of Megrahi: You are my Jury on the Amazon website by ‘Ken Fyne’ who (I am reliably informed) is none other than Scotland’s most distinguished living novelist, James Robertson:]

For those who have long had severe doubts, if not downright disbelief, about the way the Lockerbie investigation and trial were conducted, John Ashton's book provides all the detailed analysis of what went wrong that one could wish for. Just about all the relevant information is gathered here, so it is an excellent handbook for anyone interested in this tragic affair.

Of course the purpose of the book is to put Megrahi's side of the story, and some will find that difficult or even offensive. But what emerges - whether or not you believe that he is the victim of a miscarriage of justice - is such a damning critique of the Scottish justice system that it is surely inconceivable that the legal and political establishment can hold out much longer against disclosure of all the facts. It is certainly unacceptable if the report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into why Megrahi may have had an unfair trial is not soon published in full: that report is now leaking like a sieve and there is no longer any sensible reason not to let us see all of it.

Personally I believe that Megrahi is innocent. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise but the original trial judgment certainly failed in every way to convince me of his guilt. John Ashton's book scores particularly highly in describing all the information that came to light AFTER the trial - including much evidence that appears to have been deliberately withheld from the defence team by the Crown and the police. The incredible interference and control of American intelligence agencies in the affair is also well documented.

This book rightly concentrates on why Megrahi's conviction was wrong, and does not dwell on the question of his compassionate release, which is a secondary matter. Whether Scotland opts for independence in the next few years or stays within the United Kingdom, its justice system has a terrible stain on it, and will continue to have unless and until a full inquiry into the whole sorry business brings the facts out of the shadows.

[James Robertson also has a letter published in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

Is the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who envisages a future scenario in which English aircraft "bomb the hell" out of Glasgow and Edinburgh airports by any chance the same Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who last year was appointed by Alex Salmond as an adviser to the Scottish Government on standards of ministerial conduct ("English 'would bomb our airports'", The Herald, March 13 & Letters, March 14)?

And could he be the same Lord Fraser of Carmyllie who as Lord Advocate drew up the indictment against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing, was satisfied by the verdict against Megrahi, yet subsequently described the Crown's key witness, without whose evidence Megrahi could not have been found guilty, as "not quite the full shilling" and "an apple short of a picnic"?

And can we take anything said by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie with any degree of seriousness?


[A letter from Tom Minogue in the 16 March edition of The Scotsman reads as follows:]

In a 2005 interview, Peter Lovat Fraser, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who as lord advocate set up the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeiss in the Netherlands – which resulted in the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi – said that the key prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, was “not quite the full shilling”, and “an apple short of a picnic”.

As we now know (...) on the contents of the 821-page Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission dossier, that Gauci received payment equivalent to £2 million, does it not raise questions about the former lord advocate’s judgment?

Surely if a man of modest means such as Mr Gauci can become a millionaire for giving evidence for a few days in a Scottish court case, he cannot be said to be anything other than very astute?

If he were to be the subject of analogy surely a more fitting example would be “as sharp as a tack”?

Here's to 2013 and to getting to the truth behind Lockerbie

[I wish a very happy New Year to all readers of this blog.  Here is what my friend Auntie Jo posted a few hours ago on the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page:]

A Happy Hogmanay from Scotland and a Happy New Year when the bells strike twelve. Here's to 2013 and to getting to the truth behind Lockerbie. We are making progress. Let's all decide what we can do as individuals to take forward the work of JFM. Let's storm our MSPs and MPs, let's challenge the media for allowing the clear evidence challenging that flawed verdict to be cast aside. Let's take them on. It can be done. Thank you to JFM for the efforts you make to keep those of us out here informed and right behind you! And thank you for these pages where we have met up with others from all over the place who share a common aim: justice. We know how much of your personal time that takes up and we are grateful. You have the Crown Office on the run and a Justice Minister who can't cope with the prospect of facing you up front. That means you are doing something right. You have all of them rattled. Together in 2013 we can all rattle them a bit more! To all: Slainte!

[And here are two snippets from today’s newspapers, catching up on the recent story in Scotland on Sunday and on Alan Clark’s play The Lockerbie Bomber:]

Families of Lockerbie bombing victims have accused a Scots author of being a “cheerleader” for the man convicted of the terrorist atrocity.

Best-selling writer James Robertson has campaigned to clear the name of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

And his latest novel, which is billed as being “inspired by the Lockerbie bombing”, tells the story of a university lecturer whose wife and daughter are killed in the terrorist atrocity in 1988.

The story mirrors the life of Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims.

American relatives of some of the victims claim Robertson is part of a “cottage industry of deniers” about Megrahi.

Frank Duggan, of the US-based Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: “If the book is inspired by the Lockerbie bombing and the author believes Megrahi was not guilty, it will not rise to the top of my reading list.

“I guess James Robertson takes the position that it was not Megrahi but some other Libyans who were guilty.” (...) [RB: I suspect that Mr Duggan’s guess is as misconceived as most of his Lockerbie statements.]

Robertson was unavailable for comment about his novel The Professor of Truth, which is out in June.

But he is convinced Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. -- Daily Record

A furious mum whose daughter was among the Lockerbie death toll has hit out at a play which makes the bomber a VICTIM of the airplane terror blast.

Outraged Susan Cohen, 74, branded writer Alan Clark’s show “despicable” for its claim that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted in a cover-up over the murderous atrocity.

A total of 270 people, including 20-year-old American Theodora, were killed when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over the Dumfries-shire town in 1988.

But Clark includes Libyan Megrahi’s name in a dedication to the casualties of the horror attack.

Shaken Susan, of New Jersey in the US, said: “Megrahi murdered my daughter — he’s not a victim. It is repulsive to put Theodora’s name in with his.”

“Does he have any idea how horrible that is to the families? It’s despicable and so insulting to those who lost relatives.” Clark — who writes under the name Kenneth N Ross — directs and stars in the drama at Alloa’s Alman Theatre next month.

The plot centres on bereaved parents, investigative journalists and US government officers whose lives have all been affected by the bombing.

Clark, 59, of Larbert, Stirlingshire, insisted he hopes his debut play will help fuel calls for a public inquiry. He said: “I started with an open mind but after a year of painstaking research I came to the conclusion Megrahi was set up.

“The play is dedicated to the victims of the outrage and their families. I believe Megrahi is the 271st victim so he is included.” (...)

Clark’s play is backed by Dr Jim Swire, 76, whose daughter Flora died in the attack and who has campaigned for Megrahi’s conviction to be overturned.

He said: “I welcome the play as it tries to shed light on what happened when the investigation went off the rails. I believe Megrahi was wrongly identified.” -- The Sun

JFM secretary's report on Justice Committee consideration of Megrahi petition

[What follows is the report by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, on the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee’s consideration of JFM’s petition on 4 June:]

Most of you will already be aware of Tuesday's result, however, for those who do not, I enclose here various links to the event to put you in the picture. In brief, again, the Justice Committee is to be thanked for maintaining the status of our petition, PE 1370, as open. Moreover, they are also to be thanked for agreeing to write to both the Justice Directorate and the Crown Office on our behalf in order to establish a variety of factual information relating to the allegations we have lodged with Police Scotland. I will not go into the details of this here since it is all contained in our submissions to the Justice Committee and is self evident in the Committee's official report.

Clearly this is a positive result, however, and if not too late, the JFM Committee would like to enquire of the Justice Committee whether or not the letter to the Justice Directorate could be made a little more specific. Our feeling is that the form of the question is somewhat open in that it does not specify the laws that we have quoted as being the ones which provide the government with the power to farm out our allegations to an independent investigator: this being of particular relevance here where Mr MacAskill has, by offering us no alternative but to lodge our allegations with Police Scotland, created extraordinary and highly dubious circumstances in which the Crown Office and Police Scotland have become investigator, judge, jury and accused all rolled into one. Whilst there is a directness and simplicity to the from of words chosen by the Justice Committee in the letter, Mr MacAskill has a record of saying 'I 'beg to differ with JFM' in the interpretation of law. This occurred when we gave evidence on the Punishment and Review Act (shortly before the publication of the Statement of Reasons for Mr Megrahi's second appeal in The Herald). The fact is that his interpretation of the law was wrong then because the Scotland Act superseded the Data Protection Act, and Westminster had not seen fit to include the Data Protection Act in the Scotland Act as a reserved issue, therefore, the issue of its being raised at all with Westminster was indeed a red herring, as we said at the time. Nonetheless, and despite the fact that The Herald's actions rendered the whole business redundant, he got away with it on the day. We will be writing to the Justice Committee to see if it is possible to modify this current letter to the Justice Directorate, and I will inform you of the result as soon as I know it.

In the meantime, see here below the relevant links covering the Justice Committee's consideration of PE 1370. I have also included a link to an interview given by James Robertson immediately after the hearing. James's most recent novel, The Professor of Truth was launched in Edinburgh on Thursday to a packed house, and has been receiving enthusiastic and very well-deserved reviews. James has been extremely courageous with this work: a book which, whilst it stands firmly on its own two feet without the references to actual events, quite obviously poses a significant challenge for the author simply because it does have these associations. I strongly recommend it to you all.

The committee wishes to thank both Tessa Ransford and James for joining us at the hearing on Tuesday, and to all of you for your constant support. 

Parliament PE 1370 general references page:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/44107.aspx

Parliament TV broadcast of 4th June JC consideration of PE 1370:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/newsandmediacentre/41408.aspx

JC official report:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=8193

Letter from JC to JD:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/20130606_CG_to_Cab_sec.pdf

Letter from JC to COPFS

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_JusticeCommittee/Inquiries/20130606_CG_to_Crown_Agent.pdf

James Robertson BBC interview immediately subsequent to 4th June JC consideration of PE 1370:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0210pmg/The_Culture_Studio_with_Janice_Forsyth_04_06_2013/

Jim Swire and James Robertson at Skye Book Festival

[The following is from Dr Jim Swire:]

On Friday 26 July I shall be at the Aros Centre in Portree at 7pm with author James Robertson [as part of the Skye Book Festival] discussing his latest book The Professor of Truth, an allegory based on the Lockerbie disaster. Robertson did not collude with real life Lockerbie relatives like myself during the writing of this book, but he intuitively writes with understanding of the emotional turmoil the disaster and the denial of truth still causes for those affected.

The disaster was so long ago and the stories surrounding it so complex that I thought you might like to allow your readers to see how the pursuit of the truth for 25 years now looks to me, the father of Flora Swire (a descendent of the Flora MacDonald of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s day) who spent his boyhood on Skye.

Two stories of who had caused it unfolded in court in Holland. I listened to both throughout the trial and came to judge one to be true and one false. Subsequent events have confirmed one of these stories and rendered the other unbelievable. So clear is the distinction between them now that there is little doubt in many people’s minds as to where the truth lies.

I hope that this piece will influence your readers for I have always wanted people to search for the truth and believe that my comments are as accurate as is possible in the face of ongoing concerted attempts to conceal aspects of that truth.

Scottish Cabinet Secretary haunted by Robertson Lockerbie novel

[The Sunday Herald this week ran the second part of its feature in which various Scottish figures select their favourite books of 2013.  Here is part of what two of them wrote:]

Ron Butlin, author: James Robertson's The Professor Of Truth (Hamish Hamilton, £16.99) is a masterly novel that not infrequently touches on the Lockerbie bombing. Fine storytelling, great characterisation and with no unnecessary detail, it is a compelling thriller that succeeds also as a work of quality literary fiction. 

Michael Russell MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning: James Robertson is Scotland's literary chronicler par excellence, and his ability to make us feel uncomfortable but immensely better informed about the human condition is perfectly in evidence in The Professor Of Truth (Hamish Hamilton, £16.99), which is by far the best book I have read this year. Visual and cerebral, it still haunts me, months after I devoured it in a sitting.

[Would that Mike Russell would turn his very considerable gifts of persuasion to convincing his Scottish Government colleagues, and particularly the Scottish law officers, to do the right thing about Lockerbie and the shameful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.]

Questioning the official narrative

[The following is excerpted from an article published in today’s edition of The Herald:]

Why is it, James Robertson wonders, that Scottish authors have been so drawn to the themes of hidden agendas and double lives?

Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about this. Later, so did John Buchan. Later still, so did crime writer Frederic Lindsay - and Robertson himself.

These themes do seem to have a timeless fascination. They are not, of course, confined to Scots-born writers; but there is something in them that has plainly appealed to writers for a very long time.

The reason all of this has come up now is that Robertson, one of our most gifted and garlanded novelists, is giving an intriguing talk on this very subject next Friday. It has the fitting title of The Blanket of the Dark.

"Is this peculiarly Scottish or not?" he asks. "I don't think we're any more susceptible to leading double lives than anybody else in the world. Nevertheless, it is a theme that runs through quite a lot of our literature.You can even see it in James Hogg. It does seem to crop up time and again." (...)

Step forward Robert Louis Stevenson. "Jekyll and Hyde is the absolute prototype for books about double-dealing, about people leading one life on the surface but another one when night falls."

This is a theme that has appealed to Robertson himself over the years, and which he has explored in novels such as his "beautifully plangent" (so ran The Herald's accolade) work from 2013, The Professor of Truth.

"That was based on the Lockerbie disaster but I wanted to try to distance it from the real event and look at some of the bigger issues that always attach to major stories like that. One of the things I found fascinating about Lockerbie is how there's a narrative that has been officially presented through the investigation and the trial. Increasingly, people have questioned whether that is a valid narrative. Purely as a writer, because that's what I do, I'm interested in the whole question of narratives and how they become fixed, or distorted, and how they are challenged. In my big novel about Scottish politics, And the Land Lay Still, there is a subterranean dimension as well as a surface one." (...)

The Blanket of the Dark: Truth and Lies in Real and Imagined Scotland; Informatics Forum, Edinburgh University, Friday, [22 May] 5.30pm. Website: http://www.spyweek.llc.ed.ac.uk

Jury Still Out on Justice for Megrahi

[This is the headline over an article posted today by Ruth Wishart, one of Scotland’s most distinguished journalists, on her blog. It reads as follows:]

Today in Edinburgh a group of eminent people - or according to the Lord Advocate a group of "conspiracy theorists"- are holding a media event to highlight what they and many senior lawyers believe to be a further attempt to close down assertions that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was not responsible for placing the bomb on board Pan Am 103.

Twenty seven years from the tragedy and four years from the death of Abdulbaset al-Megrahi, the controversy surrounding his conviction and the events at the Scottish court convened at Camp Zeist refuse to go away.  The Justice for Megrahi group which contains a number of prominent campaigners including Len Murray, Iain McKie, the novelist James Robertson and Jim Swire - whose daughter Flora was a victim - have made no fewer than 9 allegations concerning the flawed presentation or omission of vital evidence, and the information withheld from defence lawyers.

Amongst the areas they flag up is their continuing  belief that the bomb was loaded at Heathrow not Malta. that the identification of Megrahi as  the man who purchased clothing in the suitcase  supposedly containing the bomb came from a CIA paid informant, and that the fragments of circuit board recovered from the bomb did not conform, as argued, to the design sold to and used by Libya.

More seriously still, they allege that the prosecution misled the court and the bench when relaying the heavily redacted cables from US intelligence surrounding Megrahi's identification.

But the reason for today's conference is that Operation Sandwood,  the police investigation into these charges  surrounding the behaviour of crown witnesses, and indeed the Crown Office itself, is due to be published imminently.  In the normal course of events this report would go to the Lord Advocate.  Justice for Megrahi members believe this would amount to the Crown Office being the arbiter of its own actions and that a fully independent recipient must be found.

Interestingly Police Scotland yesterday announced that they would have the Sandwood report scrutinised by a QC they appointed "to ensure the critical requirement of demonstrating independence from the Crown'. While the timing of this intervention is hardly co-incidental, it remains to be seeen whether it will allay the disquiet of the JfM protagonists. 

Certainly, thus far they have been unpersuaded by the Lord Advocate's assurance that he can produce such an objective source from within his own organisation. 

Their scepticism is shared by some very prominent figures in the Scottish legal establishement.

Brian McConnachie QC says that:  “Having declared the allegations to be defamatory, unfounded, false and misleading, it is in my opinion impossible for any decision of the Lord Advocate arising out of the allegations to be seen to be impartial, objective or unbiased.”

While Alan Page, Professor of Public Law at Dundee University believes that  “Public confidence in the administration of criminal justice requires there to be no doubt that decisions whether or not to institute criminal proceedings are taken free from political or any other form of bias.”

The waters here are further muddied by the ongoing Crown Office's own investigation into Lockerbie which seeks to uncover which accomplices were also involved.  But, since that process is predicated on an assumption of Megrahi's guilt, it's clear that the two reports might prove entirely contradictory.

In addition a petition submitted to Holyrood's Justice Committee remains open some years after it was first laid.

I have no special expertise legal or otherwise in assessing the strength of the allegations made by the Megrahi committee.  But I do have huge respect for the integrity and knowledge of people like Jim Swire who has exhaustively reviewed the evidence, and James Robertson who painstakingly researched all aspects of the trial during his research for his Lockerbie based book The Professor of Truth.

None of the others involved would appear to have any particular axe to grind save their continuing doubts that there may have been a gross miscarriage of Scottish justice.

Similarly it seems to me foolish to ignore the legal opinions of such senior judicial figures as Brian McConnachie and Alan Page.

But in any event the core legal argument they make in the context of Operation Sandwood is a sound one - if you have an involvement in the matters under consideration, you cannot be the judge of a report on them.

The Lord Advocate, if he is right about these allegations being "misleading, unfounded" and the product of "conspiracy theorists" has surely nothing to lose by letting the report land on a wholly independent desk.

Lockerbie miscellanea

1.  A Lockerbie timeline has recently been posted on the CNN website.  For those wishing an overview of the chronology of the Lockerbie affair (from an American perspective, of course) it is useful. Other Lockerbie timelines have been produced, eg by the Scottish Government and The Guardian.

2.  A favourable review of James Robertson’s The Professor of Truth has appeared on the website of Minnesota’s Star Tribune newspaper.  The US edition of the book was published on 9 September.

3.  James Robertson will be talking about The Professor of Truth at the Wigtown Book Festival, today at 16.30.

"He cannot have it both ways"

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in today’s edition of The National:

Lockerbie campaigners who believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was innocent of the 1988 atrocity have accused former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of concealing the truth behind the investigation into the bombing.

In a statement, Justice for Megrahi (JfM) said that in his book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, MacAskill had hung out the UK, US and international bodies out to dry for their “hypocrisy” in pursuing their self-interest agenda. But, said JfM: “In reality, it is the Scottish justice system and people like himself and the Crown Office who have facilitated these self-interest agendas by conducting a flawed investigation and trial and by concealing the true facts behind Mr Megrahi’s conviction.”

“Mr MacAskill and the Crown Office stand indicted of frustrating the very search for justice that he proclaims to be pursuing in the title of his book. His refusal to allow a Scottish independent enquiry and his support for the Crown Office, who over the years have attempted to hide the paucity of the prosecution case, only serves to highlight his double standards.”

The group said that time after time, MacAskill and the Scottish Government had stated that the only way justice can be done is through the Scottish courts, yet now he was saying that Scotland was “powerless to interfere in the face of international double dealing”.

“It is clear from the information he now reveals in his book that he holds previously undisclosed evidence which is relevant to JfM’s nine criminal allegations being investigated by Police Scotland. We have reported him to this authority as a vital and compellable witness,” they added.

Professor Robert Black QC said: “MacAskill’s book seeks to paint a very rosy picture of the performance of the Scottish justice system in the Lockerbie case. The investigation, prosecution and trial were apparently all exemplary. In fact, there were grave – and perhaps criminal – flaws in all three.”

Author Dr James Robertson added: “Kenny MacAskill stated repeatedly as Cabinet Secretary for Justice that he did not doubt the safety of the guilty verdict against Megrahi.

“In this book he demolishes key parts of the evidence that secured the verdict, while still maintaining Megrahi was involved. He cannot have it both ways.”

Green MSP John Finnie, his party’s justice spokesperson, said: “Lockerbie was Scotland’s largest mass-murder for which a man, many people believe was innocent of that vile crime, spent long years in prison.

“Citizens, and that includes former cabinet secretaries for justice, are obliged to co-operate in the investigation of crime and I hope that’s exactly what Mr MacAskill will do now there has understandably been a further complaint to Police Scotland.”

[James Robertson appeared last night on BBC Two’s Scotland 2016 talking about Kenny MacAskill’s book. The programme can be viewed here for the next month.]

Fourth meeting between Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland

[What follows is a précis of the fourth meeting held between the Justice for Megrahi Police Scotland Liaison Group and officers of Police Scotland at Tulliallan on 24th November 2014. Reports on the earlier meetings can be found here and here and here.]

Present:

Justice for Megrahi (JfM):  Iain McKie; James Robertson.

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

Apologies: Len Murray.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Agenda:

This is the fourth 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 welcomed those present whilst acknowledging the apology sent by Len Murray due to illness.

He referred to the previous meeting held on 29th September 2014; despite neither himself nor James Robertson being present, he acknowledged this still provided opportunity for meaningful dialogue and discussion on the progress of the enquiry and that much of the discussion at the last meeting focused on what is essentially the conclusion, meantime, of enquiries into Allegation 8.

It was agreed by both parties that the précis of the last meeting was accurate for submission to the Justice Committee and DCC Livingstone confirmed he would update the JC convener’s clerk.  The confidential meeting record was also discussed to be agreed.

DCC Livingstone confirmed that a meeting with the appointed independent QC had been arranged for early December 2014 to discuss the draft report in relation to Allegation 8.

D Supt Johnstone referred to the close relationship between Police Scotland and JfM; this allowed for open and frank discussion which had been, and would continue to be recorded in an agreed confidential record of meetings, with also a subsequent agreed précis for public release.  JfM were in full agreement with this and emphasised the importance of keeping certain discussions confidential.

DCC Livingstone reiterated that consideration was ongoing in terms of the necessity and proportionality of interviewing witnesses, and that the matter of interviewing witnesses would be considered by the investigating officers and actioned if deemed necessary.  JfM, acknowledging this, however stated they expected in principle that witnesses would require to be interviewed at some stage.

DCC Livingstone added that as these were unique circumstances the appointment of an independent QC provided the police investigation with an appropriate level of scrutiny prior to reporting the findings to Crown Office, which was clearly not the normal procedure.  It was again emphasised that this was a key relationship and preparatory work was underway prior to the next formal meeting with the QC.  

JfM highlighted their desire to discuss the findings of the police investigation at the conclusion and acknowledged although they may not be in full agreement or entirely satisfied with the findings, they appreciated a thorough investigation was ongoing.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that the analytical research had been opened out and wider reaching including analysis of publications by Morag Kerr, John Ashton along with the JfM allegations.  A document listing 64 assertions had been compiled which was particularly complex and included key areas of forensics, 3 airports security and movement of baggage.  This was identified as the largest body of work due to the sheer volume of information and documentation.

D Supt Johnstone highlighted that there was a good relationship with the SCCRC who are assisting the police investigation with providing relevant documentation and information, where necessary.

Police Scotland also confirmed that to date, there has been no dialogue with Crown Office in relation to the police investigation into the 9 allegations made by JfM.

JfM emphasised that it was critical that the present level of trust was maintained with Police Scotland and that this should not be jeopardised by either party.

Although not directly linked to their criminal allegations JfM raised concerns about a perceived lack of follow up treatment by the authorities for police officers and others who had been traumatised as a result of their Lockerbie related duties. It appeared as if a number had suffered from post traumatic stress and other psychological and emotional reactions and these effects had not been effectively monitored and treated by the various responsible authorities. They felt that these issues were worthy of recognition and comment. DCC Livingstone acknowledged this concern and outlined how Police Scotland were alert to such issues and had built in welfare procedures to identify, diagnose and care for those officers who suffered such reactions.

The JfM representatives asked Police Scotland to confirm in respect of their enquiries into the ‘timer’ fragment found at Lockerbie, whose provenance had subsequently been challenged by JfM in their allegations, that should these challenges be upheld, would further enquiry then be made into the evidence of the witnesses who allegedly found the fragment and who had subsequently handled and analysed it.

DCC Livingstone explained that while he would not go into detail about any aspect of their investigation, no legitimate lines of enquiry arising from their investigations would be excluded.

D Supt Johnstone confirmed that a specific timeline was being compiled in relation to ‘evidence’ related to the “bomb” used in the atrocity.

The matter of forensic issues and experts was raised by JfM. D Supt Johnstone explained there were several areas which would require independent forensic experts.

In terms of the projection of the police investigation, D Supt Johnstone indicated this would progress well into 2015.  Additional expert support was being provided by the National Crime Agency emphasising the degree of specialist support to the police investigation.

Conclusion

JFM representatives stated they were satisfied with the updates and with the process whereby a confidential record of discussions is maintained and circulated to both parties, and an agreed précis released to the public.  It was agreed to hold the next meeting around February 2015.

Both parties agreed that the positive relationship and mutual trust which had been built was apparent and that the discussions continued to be open, frank and extremely beneficial.