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 Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal.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.

The Herald wins newspaper of the year award

The Herald was named Newspaper of the Year during a night of success for Herald & Times Group at the prestigious Scottish Press Awards last night.

Chief reporter Lucy Adams won Journalist of the Year and Reporter of the Year ...

Ms Adams’s double success is recognition for the way she led the story of the Scottish Government’s controversial decision to release cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, on compassionate grounds so that he could return home to Libya in August.

She was the first UK journalist to interview Megrahi at his home in Tripoli. Under the headline "Truth never dies", Lucy reported his demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity and his 10-year fight with the Scottish legal system to clear his name.

Donald Martin, editor-in-chief of Herald & Times Group and chair of the Scottish Newspaper Society’s Editors’ Committee, said: "(...) I am really delighted for our winners tonight, and nominees. It’s testimony to their talent, hard work and dedication. At the end of the day it’s quality that counts and, across all three titles, we have that in abundance.”

He added that Lucy “thoroughly deserves” her awards.

He said: “Lucy is a fantastic journalist, a real asset who impresses everyone she meets and works with. I am so pleased for her.”

[From a report posted on Friday on the heraldscotland website. Lucy Adams's Lockerbie stories (some of the most important ones written with Ian Ferguson) can be read here.]

Some pertinent questions for the Scottish Government

[What follows is the text of a letter sent and emailed to the First Minister, Alex Salmond, on 19 November by barrister and author David Wolchover:]

The destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie

You may have been made aware of some of my writings on Lockerbie, earlier correspondence with the Government of Scotland on the topic, and of the fact that last week I posted on my website a new and much expanded revision of my treatise, Culprits of Lockerbie (http://www.davidwolchover.co.uk/docs/Culprits%20of%20Lockerbie.doc).

Re-launch of the treatise was reported in an article by Lucy Adams in The Herald on 13 November, 2013 (“Iranian president accused of insight into Lockerbie attack” – for some reason, as Robert Black QC points out in his Lockerbie blog, the newspaper has not posted the article on line, despite its prominence in the paper edition).

As you are doubtless aware the treatise was considered newsworthy because I included the results of my recent researches and analysis inferentially demonstrating the high probability that the Scots-educated President Hassan Rouhani of Iran was complicit in procuring the atrocity with the then Interior Minister Hojatoislam Ali Akbar Mohtashemi. This was also the theme of a recent feature I contributed to the widely read weekly newspaper Jewish News (“The grim Lockerbie shadow over Iran’s new president,” 31.1013, http://jewishnews.co.uk/ the-grim-lockerbie-shadow-over-irans-new-president/).

I am not writing with any hope of eliciting comment from you on this admittedly thorny topic. Were that to be the case I should not be surprised if the result were any different from Lucy Adams’s attempt to obtain a comment from President Rouhani’s office: ie no response. Rather I am writing for a very specific reason.

Lucy asked the Crown Office to comment and in her piece she reported their spokesman’s response:

“The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and Police Scotland are actively working with US law enforcement in pursuit of lines of inquiry to bring to justice the others involved in the Lockerbie bombing. This is a live investigation and in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation it would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”

The thrust of the response was predictable enough but, unless and until Scotland attains independence, I believe that, as a UK taxpayer, I am entitled to ask of you, as Head of the Government of Scotland, the following questions:

• How many officers of the Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary or any other Scottish police force or department are there currently assigned to work on the case and how many are actually working on it?

• Of what rank and speciality are they?

• Whether the officers are working on it full-time or in addition to other duties?

• What budget has been set aside for the investigation?

• What has been the expenditure on foreign travel in connection with their inquiries, or telephone calls over the last 12 months?

• Has there been any material progress in uncovering substantive new evidence?

• If there has been no recent relevant evidence uncovered, why are there officers still assigned to, and more importantly working on, the case?

• What is the current Crown Office budget vis a vis Lockerbie inquiries?

If there has been no progress despite significant expenditure I believe I am entitled to know why British tax payer’s money is being devoted to an investigation which is going nowhere.

That might be a matter of relevance in the current constitutional debate.

A substantive reply to the above questions would be appreciated.

For the convenience of your staff I am enclosing/attaching a copy of The Herald article.

Megrahi release today to prevent 'martyrdom'

[This is the headline over the main Lockerbie report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will be released today on compassionate grounds but Libya has given an undertaking that there will be no "triumphalism".

The Herald understands that one compelling reason for allowing the Libyan to return to Tripoli is to avoid him dying as a "martyr" in prison and putting Scotland on the map for all the wrong reasons.

The public announcement will be made at 1pm by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, who has been considering an application for prisoner transfer and for Megrahi's release on compassionate grounds.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and has less than three months to live, will fly home to his family in time for Ramadan - as The Herald stated last week.

Megrahi, who is serving 27 years in HMP Greenock for the bombing that killed 270 people in December 1988, is expected to fly to Tripoli in a private jet owned by the Libyan government.

The Foreign Office yesterday advised the State Department of the decision.

Despite concerns that Megrahi will be paraded through the streets to a hero's welcome, The Herald understands that Libyan delegates have told ministers that there would be no such triumphalism.

There is also a tacit agreement that the Libyan government will make no comment until after his return and that, even then, it will not use Megrahi as a big part of Colonel Gaddafi's September celebrations for 40 years in power.

Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, the Libyan minister and former ambassador who was key to the talks to resume diplomatic relations with the UK and has been involved in the discussions about Megrahi, was in London yesterday. Obeidi is expected to fly from Luton to collect Megrahi at lunchtime.

[The same newspaper has a further article by Lucy Adams headed "Scotland caught in the middle of an international drama" on the diplomatic manoeuvrings that got us where we are today; and a thoughtful and moving opinion piece by Anne Johnstone entitled "Ability to show compassion is a gift more precious to the giver".]

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.

Megrahi may return to Libya, Lockerbie families told

This is the heading over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:

'Senior legal officials, in a tacit acknowledgement that the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is likely to be allowed to return home, have written to all relatives of the victims explaining the transfer process.

'After years of denial by ministers and officials, the Crown Office e-mail suggests that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, currently serving 27 years in Greenock Prison for the bombing that killed 270 people, will be allowed to return to Libya under a transfer agreement to be ratified before the end of this month.

'The e-mail also suggests that ratification may take place on April 27, the day before Megrahi's long-awaited appeal begins in Edinburgh.

'Earlier this year, The Herald revealed that Libyan officials had been encouraged by senior civil servants from both sides of the border, including Robert Gordon, the head of the Justice Department in Scotland, to apply for Megrahi to be transferred as soon as the agreement is ratified. (...)

'Yesterday's revelation coincided with the publication of a critical report on the transfer agreement by the Joint Committee on Human Rights at Westminster.

'The report makes apparent the committee's disdain of Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, for failing to delay ratification to allow for proper scrutiny.

'Mr Straw wrote to the committee in March to say he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya in regards to our willingness to conclude this and three other judicial co-operation agreements".'

The full article can be read here.

An accompanying piece headlined ‘The relatives of the victims also have human rights’, also by Lucy Adams, contains the following:

'Little has been allowed to get in the way of plans to return the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing back to his home country since the global political axis turned. (...)

'Talks to establish a Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) between Libya and the UK began in 2005, but the Foreign Office has consistently denied that such discussions bear any relevance to Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

'The agreement, signed by Westminster and due to be ratified by the end of the month, means that any Libyan serving a sentence in the UK, who has no pending appeal, could be returned home. Those in Scottish prisons could be moved only with the permission of Scottish ministers.

'But the wheels are turning in spite of concerns and opposition. While the appeal itself has taken years to begin, the machinery behind the transfer agreement is moving with haste.

'Westminster's Joint Committee on Human Rights publicly stated last month that the treaty raises concerns and requested that ratification be delayed until the end of April so that it could publish a substantive report.

'However, Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, said he would delay ratification only until the Easter recess because "a delay beyond early April is likely to lead to serious questions on the part of Libya".

'The committee report states: "In our view, when a select committee states that it intends to scrutinise a treaty, ratification should be delayed until the committee's inquiry has concluded."

'Despite the pleas of relatives of the victims of the tragedy and Scottish ministers demanding that Megrahi be exempt from the agreement, it appears from both the Crown Office e-mail and official sources that he may be the first prisoner to be dealt with.

'First Minister Alex Salmond made clear in April 2008 that Megrahi would serve his full sentence in Scotland and that he would "defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system". However, officials have privately made clear to the Libyans that they are prepared to go back on such claims, which were allegedly "made more in relation to the murky politics of the deal in the desert than Megrahi". (...)

'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died in the tragedy, said: "Jack Straw has overridden the wishes of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and refused to delay ratification in order to ensure it can be active by April 27 - the day before the appeal starts.

"For those who think the Scottish legal process is nothing more than a political pantomime, here's the confirmation. The whole thing has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with convenience and financial gain.

'"The relatives also have human rights, including the right to know what happened to a loved one and why they were not better protected."

'A Scottish Government spokeswoman said last night: "The PTA was negotiated and signed by the UK and Libyan Governments and so is it is a matter for those governments. Once ratified, it will be for the Scottish ministers to decide on any application for prisoner transfer in relation to all prisoners in Scotland.

'"We do not discuss hypothetical applications and will not prejudge any decision."

'A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "Since the day the UK signed the agreement, we have communicated with the families because of their interest in any prisoner transfer arrangements between the UK and Libya."'

The full text of the article can be read here, and a short piece entitled Dialogue and denial on the way to a deal, which contains a catalogue of governmental prevarication and obfuscation on the prisoner transfer issue, can be read here.

Is the appeal about to be abandoned?

[Lucy Adams, chief reporter of The Herald is confident that it is. Here is what she says in an article in today's issue of the newspaper:]

Relatives and campaigners are calling for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie saga after it emerged the appeal by the man convicted of the bombing is expected to be dropped within days. (...)

British relatives, however, who broadly welcome the Libyan's release on compassionate grounds, have raised fears that the Scottish justice system's role will never be properly scrutinised without an inquiry if his appeal is dropped.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, last night said he was extremely concerned about rumours that the Scottish Government had suggested to Megrahi that he drop the appeal if he wants to go home. Mr Swire said that if he could, he would continue the appeal himself.

"When I went to see Gaddafi to persuade him to agree to Zeist, I told him the Scottish justice system was the best in the world. Since then I have been proven completely wrong.

"The speed of the appeal has been decidedly glacial and we have barely scratched the surface. A public inquiry is absolutely necessary to investigate the many concerns that have arisen. I don't believe he is guilty, but even those who do should recognise that two wrongs don't make a right."

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Zeist, said: "I just don't understand why he is dropping the appeal now.

"If the appeal is to be dropped then the next step is to press for a public inquiry. The Scottish Government has not closed the door on this and in the past have implied that they are not necessarily opposed to it. Once the appeal is dropped this is really the only avenue available for people to get questions and issues into the public domain."

Officials have vehemently denied rumours about the appeal but questions have been raised about why proceedings are to be halted, as it is possible to be released early on "compassionate" grounds while legal proceedings are active.

The Scottish Government is insisting that no decision has yet been taken to free Megrahi, but The Herald understands he will go home before Ramadan starts on August 21.

Legal papers are expected to be lodged with the court of criminal appeal in the next few days to say the appeal is to be dropped.

A Libyan official in Tripoli yesterday said a deal was "in the last steps", but stressed both sides had agreed to keep quiet until Megrahi was back in Libya.

[Note by RB: There is no way under Scottish criminal procedure by which Dr Swire could continue the appeal if Abdelbaset Megrahi instructs it to be abandoned. If Mr Megrahi died while the appeal was still proceeding, then any person with a legitimate interest could apply to the court to be allowed to continue it. This is normally a close relative of the deceased appellant, but it is just possible that the court might recognise a close relative of a murder victim as having such a legitimate interest. But if the appellant himself abandons his appeal, there is no mechanism for allowing a third party to take it over.

In a further thoughtful and important article in The Herald entitled "Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion?" Lucy Adams looks at the implications of compassionate release for a series of interested parties.

The Scotsman has an article which asserts that the Justice Secretary's decision will be announce in four days' time. The relevant portion reads:

'Relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims are expected to learn as early as Tuesday whether the only man convicted of the terrorist atrocity will be freed.

'Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill is understood to be finalising a decision to allow Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to return to Libya on compassionate grounds because he is in the late stages of cancer.

'It is believed Mr MacAskill will confirm this conclusion when the Scottish Government cabinet meets on Tuesday and a decision may be announced that evening or the following day.']

Gauci rewards documents – Crown Office obfuscates again

[Today’s edition of The Herald contains an article by Lucy Adams headlined 'Rewards for key witness in Lockerbie trial discussed by officers'. The following text, with comments from John Ashton, is taken from the Megrahi: You are my Jury website:]

The Herald has today published an article by Lucy Adams, headlined ‘Rewards for key witness in Lockerbie trial discussed by officers’, about yesterday’s release of documents. The article follows in italics, with my comments in non-italics below.

Newly released intelligence reports show how the police secretly discussed the payment of large rewards to the key witness in the Lockerbie case.

Tony Gauci, the Crown’s key witness, expressed an interest in being rewarded nine years prior to giving evidence against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing, according to the documents.

They have been released by John Ashton, author of Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Matters.

The Crown Office last night said no witness was offered any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before or during the trial.

Last year, the 800-page report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was published, but many of the accompanying documents have never been seen. Those released yesterday reveal that the FBI told the police that “unlimited money” was on offer for the witness. They indicate police believed paying Gauci and his brother Paul would ensure they would not embarrass the police or Crown.

A letter from a senior Scottish officer on the case, dated 1991, states Tony Gauci was interested in reward money and that “if a monetary offer was made to Gauci this may well change his view and allow him to consider a witness protection programme”.

After Megrahi’s conviction, the senior investigating officer lobbied the US Department of Justice to increase the previously discussed rewards of $2 million for Tony and $1m for Paul.

According to the intelligence report, the Crown Office was aware of the reward application after the first appeal, but did not become involved.

A Crown Office spokesman said: “No witness was offered any inducement by the Crown or the Scottish police before and during the trial and there is no evidence that any other law enforcement agency offered such an inducement. These documents relate to an issue which was before the Appeal Court in Megrahi’s second appeal against conviction.”

He added the Crown had been preparing to defend Megrahi’s conviction when he abandoned the appeal.

As the Crown Office well knows, the SCCRC referred the Megrahi case back to the appeal court on six grounds one of which concerned rewards. Gauci and his brother Paul, expected to be rewarded and were rewarded. His trial evidence was notably more helpful to the Crown than his original police statements. It is clear from the wording of the Crown Office statement that it cannot rule out that the FBI offered an inducement. One of the documents that I released yesterday states that, less than a month after the police found Gauci, FBI agent Chris Murray indicated to Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell that he had the ‘authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci and … could arrange $10,000 immediately.’ It seems that neither the SCCRC nor the Crown Office every sought to establish from the FBI whether one of its agents had put the offer to Gauci.

Crown refuses to reveal secret Lockerbie paper

This is the title of a front-page article in The Herald by Lucy Adams. Whereas I on this blog on 14 December merely speculated that the reason for this week's procedural hearing might be that the Crown had refused to hand over to Mr Megrahi's legal team the document relating to timers seen by the SCCRC, Lucy Adams (whose sources are usually impeccably reliable) states as a fact that this is the reason why the hearing has been called. She writes:

"Two months ago, the Crown Office was instructed to pass on the document or provide substantial reasons as to why it could not be given to the defence.

However, The Herald can reveal the Crown has since opposed the petition and suggested it has no duty to disclose. It has refused to reveal, even to the defence, the country from which the document originated, or its full reasons for not sharing the information.

The defence team is understood to be seeking the document which relates to supply of timers and an additional paper."
For the full story, see
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12452904.crown-refuses-to-reveal-secret-lockerbie-paper/

The Edinburgh Evening News has picked up the story:
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/scotland/Crown-refuses-to-reveal-secret.3599269.jp

And here is a link to Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's commentary on OhmyNews:
http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=381263&rel_no=1

It looks, therefore, as if the Crown is claiming Public Interest Immunity in relation to the document, on the basis of the public interest in maintaining good relations with the foreign country which supplied the document with the condition that its confidentiality be preserved. What the judges of the High Court will be required to do, in deciding whether to order the document to be handed over, is to balance that aspect of the public interest against the public interest in a fair trial (protected, inter alia by article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights) which involves an accused person having access to all evidence that might assist his case.

If this is indeed what the procedural hearing will be concerned with, I, for one, will find it interesting to hear the the Lord Advocate's representative arguing that maintaining good relations with a foreign country is a matter that should take precedence over the fairness of Scottish criminal proceedings.