"Don't expect your quest to carry much weight"

[What follows is excerpted from a report published yesterday on the website of the Chicago Tribune:]

The Rev John Mosey has advice for relatives seeking justice for their loved ones who died aboard Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Don't expect your quest to carry much weight.

Mosey thought truth would prevail after he lost his teenage daughter Helga, who was a passenger on Pan Am Flight 103 when it exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, just before Christmas in 1988. But as months turned into years and then into decades, he concluded that geopolitical realities had trumped his family's desire to know what really happened.

The British cleric from Lancaster says he thinks the truth about Lockerbie is still being hidden — and has told families who lost relatives when MH17 was shot down on July 17, 2014, over eastern Ukraine they can expect the same. In face-to-face informal counseling sessions at Lockerbie, Mosey has cautioned MH17 families that the interests of powerful countries like Russia and the United States over the area where the plane was brought down may well eclipse their desire for the straight story.

"We told them they need to really get together as a group, to strengthen each other emotionally and spiritually, and to get hold of a good independent lawyer," Mosey said of his emotional sessions with MH17 families. "I've told them that I hope in their countries the politicians can't control the legal system, which is what happened here (in Britain). That is what they'll be up against."

He's also told them to try and forgive those responsible for the destruction of their families — not just because it's in the Bible, but because you can get "eaten up" by bitterness and anger if you don't.

It's clear after the release Tuesday of a Dutch Safety Board report chronicling how MH17 was brought down by a Soviet-designed Buk missile that MH17 families face many more hurdles before any responsibility for the plane's downing can be clearly established — and compensated.

In the Lockerbie case, it took more than a decade of high-stakes diplomacy before a former Libyan intelligence agent became the only person convicted of downing the New York-bound Boeing 747, killing 259 people on the plane and 11 on the ground. Many victims' families believe the full story has never been made public, however.

The Dutch report on MH-17 — challenged immediately by the Russian government and the Russian state-controlled manufacturer of the missile — concluded that a Buk missile fired from Ukrainian territory controlled by Russian separatists brought down the Boeing 777, killing all 298 people aboard. The report stops short of assigning blame, however, so it does little to advance hopes of any criminal prosecution or civil claims.

That will have to wait for the results of a Dutch criminal investigation scheduled to come to a conclusion in January, said James Healy-Pratt, an aviation lawyer representing 50 MH17 families.

"They are investigating what crimes that have been committed and by whom and will recommend charges that should be brought against individuals," he said.

Then comes the hard part: Finding the suspects, arresting them and actually putting them on trial. Healy-Pratt, who also worked on the Lockerbie cases, said this will take time. (...)

Jim Swire, an English doctor who lost his 23-year-old daughter Flora when Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie, said in his meetings with MH17 families they are asking why Malaysia Airlines flew over the contested zone when some other international airlines diverted their flights.

"I think it is likely to be frustrating for them. Many sounded as if they have lost confidence in their own government," he said. "It will be very slow to resolve because international politics is involved."

At the same time, Swire said, the families who lost loved ones in the skies above Ukraine are still grieving, still looking for ways to cope.

"They are faced with a lifetime of trying to adjust to the person that's missing from their family," he said. "It's a lifetime sentence."

Why now?

[What follows is the texr of a statement by Aamer Anwar Lockerbie appeal lawyer for the family of the late Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Dr Jim Swire and the Rev'd John Mosey:]

On Thursday information was released through The Wall Street Journal that the US Attorney General William Barr was due to unseal indictments against two other possible suspects for the Lockerbie Bombing.

On Friday evening we were informed by some of the British relatives that instruct us, that they had received an email from the Crown Office Lockerbie Appeal Team that the US Department of Justice, the US Attorney’s Office, the FBI, Attorney General William Barr was inviting all the families of the victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 attack, to join him for an important public announcement and update regarding the investigation on Monday December 21, 2020, at 10:30 am EST/3:30 pm GMT. Internet live stream: http://www.justice.gov/live.

The families I represent are horrified at the intrusion on their grief, on the day that they wish to remember their loved ones. The fact that the outgoing Attorney General William Barr thinks it is appropriate to invite families to watch his ‘grandstanding’ at a press conference is deeply disrespectful to the families and victims.

Many of the families will refuse to do so and suspect the motivation of choosing to prosecute 32 years after the bombing.

The Rev'd John Mosey father of 19 year old Helga who was murdered on Pan Am Flight 103 wrote to the Crown Office and Attorney General to express his disgust at the invitation:

We consider the timing and particularly the choice of this specific day, which is special to many of us, to be bizarre, disrespectful, insensitive and extremely ill considered.

Why exactly when the Attorney General is about to leave office, has he waited 32 years to bring charges?

Why would you use the anniversary of our daughter Helga’s death along with 269 others to parade once more a highly suspect prosecution…..

Your own Department, and perhaps some parts of the Scottish legal system, should also investigated for spending over three decades trying to divert the course of justice and hide the truth.

Ali Megrahi the son of the late Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi whom I represent in the appeal had the following to say:

Monday is just another desperate excuse to accuse Libya and after 32 years want to accuse another Libyan. Why now?

Where were they in the past 32 years, especially when we have been fighting for an appeal over the last 6 years, so why release this information now? 

They want to perpetuate lies against Libya and will not let us live in peace- I lost my father and yet America continues to cause our family as well as those of the victims more pain.

As for the  American families of the victims of this atrocity, you lost loved ones and I lost my father, I am not against what you are doing, but I assure you that your government have lied to you for the past 32 years and my family and I will not give up  fighting for truth and justice.

Robert Black QC stated:

I wonder... why now? Masud’s name (and Senussi's) has featured in the Lockerbie case since the very beginning, when charges were brought against Megrahi and Fhimah in 1991. I think the answer is that Bill Barr, the US Attorney General, is wanting to go out with a bang.

He’s now about to leave the scene and he wants his name to be remembered: Lockerbie at the beginning of his career and Lockerbie at the end. 

The other possibility is that it is a blatant attempt to influence the Scottish judges when they have got the latest Megrahi appeal before them and we await their judgement.

To conclude, the actions of the US Department of Justice can only be described as a cynical attempt to use 270 dead victims for propaganda purposes.

The Attorney General must know that if the conviction of the late Al-Megrahi is overturned then the case against Abu Agila Masud is likely to fall apart. The real questions at 3.30pm will be is why now and what ‘dirty deals’ have taken place behind closed to doors to engineer these indictments.

Both the British and US Governments know that if the conviction is overturned then real questions would need to be answered as to why an innocent man Al-Megrahi was sent to prison whilst also punishing the people of Libya for a crime they did not commit.  

As we await the decision of the appeal court on the Megrahi case it would be inappropriate to comment any further.

Prevarications, obfuscations and plain lies

[What follows is the text of a report published in today’s edition of The National:]

There will never be closure in the Lockerbie bombing case until it returns to the appeal court, according to one of Scotland’s top lawyers.

Glasgow solicitor Aamer Anwar, who represents the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man ever convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, was speaking to The National yesterday – the 28th anniversary of the atrocity in which 270 people died.

“Some of the British relatives, as well as the Megrahi family, do not believe that there has ever been closure,” said Anwar. “They remain determined to search for justice and the truth.

“At this stage it would be inappropriate to comment other than to say the legal process is certainly not at an end and my thoughts are with those families of the victims, but also the family of Al Megrahi. Until this case returns to the appeal court there will never be closure.”

Earlier, Megrahi’s family reiterated their belief that the Libyan was innocent of the bombing.

Writing on a social media page set up by the Friends of Justice for Megrahi (JfM), they said they were “on the right path” to finding out the truth.

They said there was new evidence and they were working “in Switzerland and Scotland” to finally prove that Megrahi was innocent.

Writing on the same page, John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter Helga in the bombing, also expressed his belief that Megrahi, who died in 2012, was innocent.

“It is now beyond clarity that the Libyan man found guilty was falsely accused and convicted,” he said. “As one of the only two relatives who attended the whole trial and first appeal in Holland, I came away convinced that a gross miscarriage of justice had been carried out.”

Mosey said that former Sheriff Principal John Mowat has said Lockerbie was “a preventable disaster”, and the question was why it had been allowed to happen.

“This question has not even been permitted to be asked let alone answered,” he said. “Every effort to raise this question has been rebuffed. Mrs Thatcher made it very plain that there would be no independent inquiry into this, the largest mass killing in the UK outside wartime.

“Our efforts to get an answer to this primary question have been reinforced by the mass of evidence that it was known beforehand that a Pan Am flight out of the UK to the USA would have a bomb on board in a Toshiba cassette player in that week before Christmas.

“At least 10 warnings were logged by the FAA and other authorities. An anonymous phone call to the US embassy in Helsinki on December 5 gave accurate details of the bomb and the week it would be deployed.”

Mosey added that he and other families still wanted an answer to the big question: “Those who we pay to govern and protect us failed miserably even though the danger was known.

“Nothing was done to either prevent the disaster or to warn the public. We have been forced down the important but subsidiary road of questioning the verdict and attacking the Scottish legal system. We do not want to have anyone hung out to dry but simply to have some transparency and honesty from those who have strung us along for all of these years with prevarications, obfuscations and plain lies.”

The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know.

By Tam Dalyell
Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.

Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.

Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.

It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.

The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.

Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.

Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.

American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.

Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.

If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.

No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.

If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.

Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.

Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.

At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.

Fast forward 13 years. I was the chairman of the all-party House of Commons group on Latin America. I had hosted Dr Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, between the time that he won the election and formally took control in Bogota.

The Colombian ambassador, Victor Ricardo, invited me to dinner at his residence as Dr Uribe wanted to continue the conversations with me.

The South Americans are very formal. A man takes a woman in to dinner. To make up numbers, Ricardo had invited a little old lady, his neighbour. I was mandated to take her in to dinner. The lady was Margaret Thatcher, to whom I hadn't spoken for 17 years since I had been thrown out of the Commons for saying she had told a self-serving fib in relation to the Westland affair.

I told myself to behave. As we were sitting down to dinner, the conversation went like this. 'Margaret, I'm sorry your "head" was injured by that idiot who attacked your sculpture in the Guildhall.'

She replied pleasantly: 'Tam, I'm not sorry for myself, but I am sorry for the sculptor.' Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'

'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.

‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'

My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'

She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'

My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.

As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.

On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'

I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.

[This is the text of an article that appeared yesterday in the Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. It does not appear on the newspaper's website. Also not appearing there is a long article in the same edition by Marcello Mega headlined "Lockerbie: the fatal cover-up". If some kind reader were to send me a digital version, I would post it -- or excerpts from it -- here.

Marcello Mega's article is now available online. It can be read here.]

The Tundergarth drugs suitcase

A persistent rumour relating to the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie involves the alleged discovery by farmer Jim Wilson at the Tundergarth site of a suitcase containing drugs. 

Here is a snippet from an article in The London Review of Books in 2007: "Jim Wilson, a farmer from the village of Tundergarth, reported shortly after the bombing that he had found in his field a suitcase packed with a powdery substance that looked ‘like drugs’. He last saw the suitcase when he handed it over to the police, he said; he was never asked about it again." And this is from the Morning Star in 2014: "Another farmer at Tundergarth Mains, Jim Wilson, found his fields were littered with bodies and debris from the airliner. The mess included a suitcase, neatly packed with a powdery substance that looked like drugs. Wilson was one of the first witnesses to give evidence when the fatal accident inquiry started in October 1990. Yet no-one asked him about the drugs suitcase."

The Rev'd John Mosey has today kindly provided me with the following account of this fascinating story.

Here is my recollection of events and conversations with farmer Jim Wilson regarding the finding of drugs on his land.

It was Mrs Wilson who first took us across their fields to the spot where our daughter’s body had fallen on land belonging to their close neighbour. This was in the very early days and a warm relationship grew up between us. Whenever we visited Lockerbie we would try to fit in a short visit to the Mains farm.

It was during one of these visits earlier in the year, before the Fatal Accident Inquiry which was held in October 1990 that, while we were drinking tea in the farmhouse kitchen, Jim asked me to go into the sitting room with him as he had something he wanted to tell me. We sat together on the sofa and, with some agitation and emotion, he said that there was something that he needed to tell someone about. I supposed, in a way, to “get it off his chest”.

He told me that one day shortly after the disaster he had come across a suitcase which had landed in either a bed of nettles or of brambles. (I don’t recall which). The lid had sprung open and he said that he was afraid that his animals might get their noses into it. He examined it a bit more closely and found, beneath a small layer of clothing, a broad plastic ‘belt’ (that was the word he used as he showed its approximate dimensions and format with his hands). He said and signified that the ‘belt’ was divided into compartments, each filled with a white powder, and was folded backwards and forwards in the suitcase. He told me that he licked his finger and tasted the powder adding, “it wasn’t sugar”. He continued to tell me that he phoned the police and they sent out a local police officer (he could remember the number on his uniform) accompanied by an American.The American was very angry that this case had been missed. They took it away handcuffed to the police officer’s wrist.

During the Fatal Accident Inquiry, (which I attended) Jim Wilson was questioned but this matter was not raised. I approached the government appointed lawyer who was representing our interests and he took me through the security into the court where I was received by two august gentlemen one of which, I was told, was the senior police officer in charge of the case and the other the Lord Advocate or Procurator Fiscal. (I forget which, but think it was the former.) [RB: John Mosey's description of this person leads me to believe that it was not the then Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.] I told them about my conversation with Jim Wilson and asked why this matter had not been raised. I was told that they would send senior officers up to Tundergarth to question Jim about it. Brian Gill QC, our appointed legal representative, said that if I continued to pursue the matter he would cease to represent me.

About a year later, towards the end of 1991 (probably on the 21st December) we visited the Wilsons and I asked Jim about the police visit following the FAI. He replied that they hadn’t been near him. There had been no visit.

Lockerbie, the Unanswered Questions

[This is the heading over a post on The New York Times news blog, The Lede. The author is Robert Mackey, the blog editor. The following are excerpts.]

Now that the Scottish government has released Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the murder of 270 people in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on Dec 21, 1988, the appeal he had filed in a Scottish court will never be heard by a judge.

The firestorm of anger that greeted the decision to release Mr Megrahi, who is terminally ill, on compassionate grounds on Thursday is clearly based on the belief that he was responsible for the bombing, but doubts about his conviction, some of which formed the basis for the legal appeal he filed and then withdrew at the request of the Scottish government as a condition of his release, surfaced years ago. Despite what some readers of The Lede who posted comments yesterday seem to have assumed, those doubts existed outside the murky precincts of the Internet where wild conspiracy theories are spun out.

In a review of the case on Wednesday, the Scottish broadcaster STV reported that Mr Megrahi’s appeal was filed in 2007 after “a four-year review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCRC), who concluded that a miscarriage of justice could have occurred.”

On Wednesday, The Guardian published video of the Rev John Mosey, the father of one of the British victims of the bombing, who expressed his disappointment that halting Mr Megrahi’s appeal before it went to court meant that the public would never hear “this important evidence — the six separate grounds for appeal that the SCCRC felt were important enough to put forward, that could show that there’s been a miscarriage of justice.” Mr Mosey added, “We’d like to know what they are, where will they point?”

In an interview included in this video report from Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday, Mr Mosey called for a new public inquiry into the bombing and said of Mr Megrahi, “From the evidence I saw and heard in the court, and what I’ve read and seen, I doubt that he had any involvement in it at all.”

A Scottish reader of The Lede’s previous post on Mr Megrahi’s release drew our attention to this video, of a BBC interview with the father of another British victim of the bombing, Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed. Speaking as Mr Megrahi was being driven from prison, Dr Swire also called for a public inquiry and praised the Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill for his “brave” decision. He added: “I don’t believe for a moment that this man was involved, in the way that he was found to have been involved.”

Readers who want to know more about the case against Mr Megrahi, and the suggestions that he may have been wrongly convicted, can consult two documentaries: “Shadow Over Lockerbie,” made for American public radio by John Biewen and Ian Ferguson in 2000, and “Conspiracy Files: Lockerbie,” made for the BBC in 2008.

The last thing that Washington wants is the truth about Lockerbie

[On the occasion of Tam Dalyell‘s 82nd birthday, I was trawling through posts on this blog that mentioned him and came upon one from 17 August 2009 headed The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know. Here are some excerpts:]

Why have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. (...)

Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.

It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.

The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mohtashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.

Mohtashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.

Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed. This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas. (...)

Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.

If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed [Bernt] Carlsson, the UN negotiator for [Namibia] whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.

No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.

If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry.

Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'.

Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed.

At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.

[Tam then tells the story of a conversation he had with Margaret Thatcher at a dinner in 2001 hosted by the Colombian ambassador:]

Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'

'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.

‘Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'

My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'

She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.'

My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night. Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.

As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said. Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.

On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'

I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.

As Megrahi passes 600-day landmark, was he guilty?

[This is the headline over an article published today on The First Post website. It reads in part:]

The only man ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, passes an extraordinary landmark today: assuming he has not been killed by a Nato missile, then he has now survived 600 days beyond the time limit he was given by medical experts in 2009.

A team of doctors who visited him in Greenock prison on July 28, 2009 gave him three months to live because of his worsening prostate cancer. Based on that prognosis, the Scottish government agreed to free him on compassionate grounds and sent him home to Tripoli so that he might die in the bosom of his family. (...)

Families on both sides of the Atlantic who lost loved ones when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988 were furious that a man found guilty of such a monumental crime should be set free, however ill he might have been. [RB: I saw no sign of such fury from UK relatives of Pan Am 103 victims.]

The fact that he has conspicuously not died from his cancer - and that he was apparently not as ill as the medics believed - has only compounded their fury.

It was hardly surprising that in March this year President Obama announced that if Gaddafi is ousted from power, it will be a condition of the United States working with the Benghazi-based rebels that they find and hand over Megrahi.

Intriguingly, Obama did not say the White House wanted to throw Megrahi back into a prison cell based on his conviction at the 2000-01 trial in the Netherlands. Instead, Obama wants a re-trial under American law. And such a re-trial could exonerate Megrahi.

There is little doubt as the 600 days landmark is reached - and there'll be another 'anniversary' in a few weeks' time when it will be two years since Megrahi was flown home - that the long-rumbling argument that Megrahi was never guilty of the Lockerbie bombing is gaining ground. (...)

Those seeking the truth are now hoping for a legal breakthrough as a result of Scotland scrapping the double jeopardy law which for 800 years prevented a person standing trial twice for the same crime.

Scotland's recently appointed chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at recent failed prosecutions. And according to a report last week by the Scotsman, top of his list of potential re-trials is that of Lamin Khalifa Fhimah.

Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was Megrahi's co-defendant in the 2000-2001 trial, held under Scots law at Camp Zeist, a disused US airbase in the Netherlands. While Megrahi was convicted of murder, Fhimah was acquitted. Gaddafi duly greeted Fhimah on his return to Tripoli in 2001, just as he would welcome Megrahi home eight years later.

According to The Scotsman, Frank Mulholland is examining new evidence against Fhimah. He has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Gaddafi should he be captured alive. And he is eager to speak to Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the former Libyan justice minister who claimed in February to have proof linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.

Although some victims' families are not sure whether Fhimah was any more guilty than Megrahi, they welcome the chance to throw new light on what they see as an unsatisfactory outcome of the Camp Zeist trial.

Jean Berkley, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son in the Lockerbie bombing, told the Scotsman: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.

"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in. Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty."

A Cumbrian priest, the Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter at Lockerbie, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah.

"However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here." [RB: John Mosey, a Protestant pastor, will, I think, be greatly amused to be described as a "priest".]

New evidence casts doubt in Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over a report published today on the Aljazeera News website.  It reads as follows:]

Fresh scientific evidence unearthed by a Scottish legal review undermines the case against the man convicted of being responsible for the Lockerbie aircraft bombing, an investigation for Al Jazeera has found.

The Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) report details evidence that would likely have resulted in the verdict against Abdel Baset al-Meghrahi, a Libyan man convicted of carrying out the bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 in 1988, being overturned.

'Lockerbie: Case Closed', an hour-long documentary to be aired on Al Jazeera on Monday, examines the evidence uncovered by the SCCRC as well as revealing fresh scientific evidence which is unknown to the commission but which comprehensively undermines a crucial part of the case against the man known as the Lockerbie bomber.

Among the evidence examined by the SCCRC was the testimony of Tony Gauci, a shop owner from Malta, and the most important prosecution witness in the case.

Gauci identified Megrahi as a man who had bought clothing and an umbrella from him on December 7, 1988 - remnants of which were later recovered from among debris recovered from the disaster scene. 

The SCCRC found a number of reasons to seriously question this identification and Gauci’s account of events on that date, which was also the only day on which Megrahi could have been present in Malta to make such purchases.

The report also raises concerns about the legitimacy of the formal identification process, in which Gauci picked Megrahi out from a line-up. The commission found that Gauci had seen Megrahi’s photo in a magazine article identifying him as a possible suspect many weeks before the parade took place.

The SCCRC also found that Scottish police knew that Gauci was interested in financial rewards, despite maintaining that the shopkeeper had shown no such interest.

Gauci reportedly picked up a $2 million US government reward for his role in the case. Under Scottish law, witnesses cannot be paid for their testimony.

Most significantly, the documentary will reveal the dramatic results of new scientific tests that destroy the most crucial piece of forensic evidence linking the bombing to Libya.

The new revelations were put to the terminally sick Megrahi in Libya, and his comments on the case will be heard for the first time in these films.

Of Gauci, he maintains that he never visited his shop.

"If I have a chance to see him [Gauci] I am forgiving him. I would tell him that I have never in my entire life been in his shop. I have never bought any clothing from him. And I tell him that he dealt with me very wrongly. This man – I have never seen him in my entire life except when he came to the court. I find him a very simple man," Meghrahi told Al Jazeera.

John Ashton, who has been investigating the case for nearly 20 years, including time spent as part of Megrahi’s defence team, said: "The Lockerbie disaster was Europe’s worst terrorist attack. More Americans died in that attack than in any other terrorist event before 9/11. It's also Britain’s worst miscarriage of justice, the wrong man was convicted and the real killers are still out there."

Lockerbie: Case Closed will be broadcast on Monday 27 February at 20:00 GMT on Al Jazeera English.


[The following is an excerpt from a report in today’s edition of The Herald:]


Today the official biography of the Libyan convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, will be launched and two documentaries will be aired, all of which highlight new evidence and previously unseen documents that experts say would have overturned the conviction.

Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci claimed that Megrahi purchased clothes found packed around the bomb – a claim the Libyan has always denied.

In one of the TV programmes, Megrahi, 59, says: "I have never seen him in my entire life except when he came to the court. I find him a very simple man. But I do forgive him."

The Herald is one of only two newspapers in the world to have had advance access to the book, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, by John Ashton, a former member of the defence team.

The Al Jazeera documentary to be broadcast today claims Megrahi's conviction would "almost certainly" have been overturned had previously unseen evidence been used in an appeal.

The programme, Lockerbie: Case Closed, gained access to the investigations of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC) – which referred Megrahi's case for a fresh appeal in June 2007 on six grounds – and also uncovered fresh scientific evidence that it claims is unknown to the commission and "comprehensively undermines" part of the case against Megrahi. (…)

Earlier this month, campaigners fighting on behalf of Megrahi accused politicians, lawyers, civil servants and governments of an "orchestrated desire" to keep details of his case under wraps.

Members of the Justice For Megrahi group, who have called for an inquiry into his conviction, said the Crown Office and civil service would "do anything" to stop disclosure.

The Al Jazeera documentary claims to disclose the "dramatic results" of new scientific tests that undermine forensic evidence used in the case.

John Ashton, the author of the book, has been investigating the case for nearly 20 years.

He said: "The Lockerbie disaster was Europe's worst terrorist attack. More Americans died in that attack than in any other terrorist event before 9/11. It's also Britain's worst miscarriage of justice – the wrong man was convicted and the real killers are still out there."

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

Scottish publisher Birlinn launches into the Lockerbie controversy today with the publication of a book that promises the fullest account yet of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi’s story in his own words.

Megrahi: You Are My Jury – The Lockerbie Evidence, is by John Ashton, who worked with Megrahi’s legal team from 2006 to 2009.

A long-time researcher on the case, he is said to have been working on the 500-page book with Megrahi since the latter’s release from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds following a cancer diagnosis in August 2009.

In its summary, the book promises to present “conclusive new evidence” to prove Megrahi was “an innocent victim of dirty politics, a flawed investigation and judicial folly”. (…)

Details of the book’s contents have been a closely guarded secret. But it has hit the headlines well before its publication, with some parents of those who died denouncing it as “blood money”.

The Rev John Mosey, will be in Edinburgh today for the book’s launch. His daughter died in the atrocity.

He said he respected Mr Ashton’s research, adding: “If the rumours of its contents are well-founded, it could open up the Lockerbie thing in a very serious manner that the legal profession will have to take notice of.” (…)

Nearly half of the latest book is in Megrahi’s own words, a Birlinn spokesperson said yesterday. About a third explores the forensic evidence, and one person who has read it described it as so complicated that “my brain has been stewed”.

The Birlinn spokesperson said: “The book came to us, and the board talked about it long and hard, but decided that this was a book we wanted to publish.

“We published it without serialisation or profiting from the book, just to get Megrahi’s story on the record.

“There is new evidence within the book, and that’s what will be revealed today. It’s also the first time that we have had a wealth of material in Megrahi’s own words.

“He will not receive any form of payment for the book.”

[A further article in The Scotsman, which purports to disclose some of the evidence in the book and contains reactions from Lockerbie relatives, can be read here.  The Times's short report (behind the paywall) can be read here. A report in today’s Daily Mirror can be read here; the report in the Daily Record here; and the report in The Sun here. The Press Association news agency report can be read here. A report on the STV News website can be read here.]

Victim of one of the most spectacular miscarriages of justice in history

[Abdelbaset al-Megrahi died in Tripoli on this date five years ago. What follows is an obituary written by Tam Dalyell that was published in The Independent:]

Acres of newsprint have appeared in recent years, covering various rather separate theories about the release of the so-called Lockerbie bomber.

If I thought for one moment that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was guilty as charged in the mass murder of 270 innocent people in the crash of the Pan Am airliner "Maid of the Seas" at Lockerbie on 21 December 1988, I would not have agreed to pen an obituary – let alone an affectionate one.

My settled conviction, as a "Professor of Lockerbie Studies" over a 22-year period, is that neither Megrahi nor Libya had any role in the destruction of Pan Am 103. The Libyans were cynically scapegoated in 1990, two years after the crash, by a US government which had decided to go to war with Iraq and did not want complications with Syria and Iran, which had harboured the real perpetrators of the terrible deed.

Libya and its "operatives", Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, only came into the frame at a very late date. In my informed opinion, Megrahi has been the victim of one of the most spectacular (and expensive) miscarriages of justice in history. The assertion of innocence is confirmed in the 497 pages of John Ashton's scholarly and remarkable book, Megrahi: You Are My Jury – The Lockerbie Evidence, published by Birlinn.

This is an opinion shared by the senior and experienced solicitor Eddie McKechnie, who successfully represented Fhimah at Zeist in Holland, where a Scottish court was assembled to try the two accused under rules conducted by the jurisdiction of the laws of Scotland, and who took on Megrahi's case following his conviction; by Tony Kelly, the immensely thorough solicitor who has represented him for the past six years; by the bereaved relatives Dr Jim Swire and the Reverend John Mosey, who lost daughters and attended the entire Zeist trial; by Professor Robert Black, Emeritus Professor of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh, and Lockerbie-born; and by many others in legal Edinburgh.

Furthermore, the Scottish Criminal Review Commission, in the course of its 800-page report, says (paragraph 24, page 708): "The Crown deprived the defence of the opportunity to take such steps as it might have deemed necessary – so the defence's case was damaged." It concluded: "The commission's view is that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred."

Megrahi was not in Malta on the date the clothing, so crucial in the whole Lockerbie saga, was bought from the shopkeeper Tony Gauci. The proprietor of Mary's House identified a number of different people, including Abu Talb, who appeared at the trial to deny his part in the bombing.

Talb was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command and is now serving a life sentence in Sweden for the 1985 bombings in Copenhagen and Amsterdam. These discrepancies were part of the reason why the Scottish criminal review commission concluded that there could have been a miscarriage of justice; another was the unexplained payment of $10m from Iranian sources into the coffers of the Popular Front.

The testimony of Lesley Atkinson, who knew Megrahi well in Tripoli, is interesting. She is the wife of Neville Atkinson, who, in 1972, left a career as a night-fighter pilot in the Royal Navy to take up a position as personal pilot to the president of Libya, Colonel Gadaffi, until 1982. "Megrahi was polite and friendly and worked for Libyan Arab Airlines," Mrs Atkinson told me. "Of course, lots of people who worked for LAA were connected to the security services and I do not doubt that he was one of them. We knew him both at work and at the Beach Club – he was a normal, nice guy. I cannot imagine that he would ever have dreamt of planting a bomb on an airliner. He just would not have done that to passengers."

Eddie McKechnie described Megrahi as a cultured man doing a job for his country, and certainly not a mass-murderer. Had he not been given extremely bad advice not to appear in the witness box Megrahi would have revealed the truth – that he was a sanctions-buster, travelling the world to find spare parts for the Libyan oil industry and Libyan Arab Airlines. This role was confirmed to me by Colonel Gadaffi, when, as leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Libya in March 2001, I saw him in his tent outside Sirte. Gaddafi's own knowledge or involvement in Lockerbie is a different matter.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi was born in 1952 and educated in Tripoli and in the Engineering Faculty of Benghazi University. He became involved in the Ministry of Trade, and like many other officials, certainly did so in the intelligence services. He served as the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines and as director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. A genuine believer in what the young Gaddafi was trying to achieve, and in the Great Jamariyah, Megrahi was happy to put his talents at the service of the state. Where else in Africa is there no hint of personal corruption among the leadership, he asked me! He had good relations with engineers at Brown and Root, I was told by their chairman and managing director, Sir Richard Morris (1980-90). Brown and Root was the contractor for the huge irrigation projects in Cyrenerica, south of Benghazi, the man-made river bringing water to desert areas that had been fertile in Roman times.

He was understandably proud of the traditional skills associated with his people. On one occasion, when I visited him in Barlinnie Prison in Glasgow and told him that I had been to Leptis Magna, he responded: "You know that my Tripolitanian ancestors were the artists in stone, responsible for work throughout the Empire, not least in Rome itself!" Had the judges had the opportunity to get to know Megrahi, as I knew him, they could never have arrived at the verdict of "guilty" – at most, the good Scots legal term "not proven".

After Zeist, Fhimah, represented by the aggressively formidable barrister Richard Keen QC, was cleared and returned to a hero's welcome in Tripoli. Fhimah talked with knowledge and pride, as did Megrahi, about the wonderful sight of Sabbratah and the glories of the Greek colonial city at Cyrene.

Meanwhile, Megrahi was incarcerated in Barlinnie Prison. I was not his only visitor there and in Greenock who came away with a favourable opinion. Dr Swire, who lost his daughter Flora, a medical student at the University of Nottingham, told me: "On meeting Abdelbaset in Greenock prison, I found him charming, rational, not given to anger or bluster. He made it obvious that his first priority was to clear his name before returning to his much-loved family in Tripoli.

"I saw him for the last time just before Christmas 2008, when, he, a devout Muslim, gave me a Christmas card in which he asked me and my family to pray for him and his family. That card is one of my most precious possessions.

"This meeting was before he could have known just how closely death loomed. I cannot criticise his apparently voluntary decision to spend his last months on earth with his family, above the priority of clearing his name."

I know that in some uninformed quarters, Dr Swire's views are regarded as eccentric. But it is the other British relatives who have studied the position in depth, such as Martin Cadman, who lost his son Bill; Pamela Dix, who lost her brother; and the Reverend John Mosey, who lost a daughter, have arrived at precisely the same conclusions about Megrahi's innocence. Unlike some American relatives, they have bothered to make exhaustive studies of the detail.

In my opinion, whatever Gordon Brown, Kenny MacAskill, Alec Salmond and Jack Straw – all fundamentally decent human beings – may feel they have to say in public due to pressure, and wickedness in Washington and in the Crown Office in Edinburgh, which, above all, did not want their misdeeds exposed by the truth, they all knew that they were acquiescing in the release of an innocent man. I am not quite so sure that Fhimah did not have an inkling about potentially explosive material on its way to the Bekaa valley.

Even in his final hours, controversy never deserted Megrahi. The Libyan authorities were absolutely justified in declining to extradite him, both for reasons of international law and more importantly, that he was not guilty as charged of the Lockerbie crime – also the considered opinion of Dr Hans Koechler, who attended Megrahi's trial as an official UN observer and has examined his appeal process in Scotland.

As James Cusick, who has followed the twists and turns of the Lockerbie saga for many years as a highly informed journalist, wrote in The Independent on Tuesday 30 August, "The truth behind the Lockerbie bombing remains enmeshed in diplomatic gains."

My last sight of Abdelbaset was on TV on 3 October, attended by Mrs Megrahi, with tubes galore, thanking Dr Swire in gentle tones for trying to furnish necessary drugs and hissing out that there were many liars at Zeist. So there were.