Scraping the bottom of the barrel

[What follows is an excerpt from an article headed Alex Salmond is in the US schmoozing away. But Americans won't forget in a hurry that he freed the Lockerbie bomber by Professor Tom Gallagher, a virulently anti-SNP commentator, published today on The Telegraph website:]

Whether a coincidence or not, at the start of Alex Salmond’s five-day visit to the United States, the Scottish National Party has suddenly launched a peace offensive after a bruising referendum campaign that has raised fears that society will be polarised for years to come. Party sources have told a Scottish newspaper that they intend to concentrate their energies on healing political wounds if Scotland votes Yes.

But to those who recall SNP rhetoric about the party preserving the best of Britishness in a social union, it needs to be taken with a hefty pinch of salt. It smacks too much of a serial wife-beater turning round to his family after a traumatic night and saying that from now on life will be totally different.

It remains to be seen if the era of good tidings will last beyond the conclusion of Salmond’s trip which includes a speaking engagement at the IMF in Washington DC. He can turn from being a political bruiser to acting as a charmer in a matter of seconds. Unfortunately for him, plenty of Americans, both influential folk and everyday citizens, have seen both sides of the coin.

It is not only relatives of the 180 US citizens killed when a bomb blew up a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie on 21 December 1988 who were astonished when his government released the man convicted by a Scottish court, in 2001, for the attack on the grounds that he had little time left to live. The release of the Libyan national Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was announced with much fanfare on 20 August 2009. Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s justice minister, read a long statement insisting that the decision was based on "the values, beliefs, and common humanity that defines us as Scots". Hillary Clinton, then the US Secretary of State, twice spoke to MacAskill in the hope that he would reconsider the release of al-Megrahi who, instead of dying within weeks, enjoyed a comfortable life in a Tripoli suburb until 2012. [RB: It requires a really quite special sensibility to describe taking over two years to die of cancer in a war-ravaged and militia-ridden locality as enjoying a comfortable life in a Tripoli suburb.]

On 15 August 2009, Robert Mueller III, director of the FBI for nearly a decade, wrote to MacAskill in terms which had rarely been used between a senior US official and a friendly government:

"I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors. Your decision to release al-Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice… I do so because I am familiar with the facts of the law , having been the assistant Attorney general in charge of the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991. And I do so because I am outraged by your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of “compassion”’. [RB: More details about Robert Mueller’s “foolish and intemperate letter” (as I described it) can be found here. I commented: “In civilised countries decisions regarding liberation of prisoners are not placed in the hands of policemen and prosecutors, nor are they accorded a veto over those decisions. Mr Mueller (and Mr Marquise) would probably wish that this were otherwise. The rest of us can be grateful that it is not.”]

The British lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson, the first president of the UN war crimes court [RB: Not so. He sat as an appeal judge in the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, something rather different.], observed that the decision taken was ‘lacking in compassion to every victim of terrorism and made an absurdity of the principle of punishment as a deterrent' ". [RB: Geoffrey Robertson’s idiosyncratic views on the Lockerbie case and Megrahi’s release can be followed here.]

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee opened hearings on the affair but Salmond refused point-blank to cooperate. [RB: this is tendentious in the extreme. A more accurate account of the episode can be found here and here.]

It is hard to imagine such a scenario being played out if the Pan Am flight had exploded over Irish, Danish or even French territory. It is likely that the authorities of each of these countries would have avoided such a rupture in bilateral relations with an allied country.

What do US cops know about justice?

[This is the headline over Ian Bell's article in tomorrow's edition of The Sunday Herald. The last section reads as follows:]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds with three months left to live. The staged celebrations upon his return to Libya anger some people. His appeal against conviction - feasible even for a dead man, but pointless - has already been withdrawn, angering others. Some are desperate for the truth; others suspect a political fix. But America's fury appears boundless.

Consider that. Scottish jurisdiction is not disputed. Nor is it news to Washington that Tony Blair stitched up a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2007 when only one Libyan was held in Britain. Nevertheless, Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, rejects that mechanism explicitly. Yet suddenly the whereabouts of the prisoner in the last dozen miserable weeks of his life matters hugely. And the word compassion causes unbridled anger.

Scotland is treated to the thoughts, none kind, of Obama, Hillary Clinton and that dying paragon, Ted Kennedy. MacAskill and Alex Salmond don't raise the possibility that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe. No-one mentions the many efforts expended by Kennedy on behalf of Irish Republicanism.

No-one asks how many Americans were convicted after the USS Vincennes brought down Iran Air flight 655 in 1986 with the loss of 290 lives. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, the carnage in Afghanistan: Scotland's government remains circumspect.

Then a cop intervenes. I say "cop"; I mean Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, a man with a shaky grasp of the Scottish system but every confidence in his all-American right to give a foreign government a dressing-down. He's "outraged", says his letter to Caledonia. "Your action makes a mockery of the rule of law," he tells MacAskill. "Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world".

There is little comfort, though, for anyone still harbouring illusions over American attitudes to American power. So now the head of the FBI, an institution with a fascinating history in the civil rights field, is laying down his law to someone else's democracy, to the country that gave the US many of the notions that fleshed out its constitution? Let's say we'll cope.

In other parts, predictably, the Scottish cringe is at work. MacAskill has outraged "the world" ("To reprieve a seriously ill prisoner is an act of humanity" - Frankfurter Allgemeine, Germany). Tourists will scorn us; whisky sales will suffer; and Jack McConnell will have to do penance for our "shame". In other words, we will lose the essential friendship of America thanks to the unforgiveable crime of compassion.

What is that sort of friendship worth? And what sort of friendship is it that loads rights on one side and responsibilities, defined unilaterally, on the other? Does it occur to no-one that some of America's actions have looked rather more heinous lately, and certainly more costly to human life, than a single ministerial decision? All that stirring talk of democracy sounds a little hollow, and not for the first time.

MacAskill might be wrong, and those of us who have agreed with him might turn out to be wrong. I happen to believe Obama is wrong about Afghanistan: how many lives lost so far? But if the minister has erred, what is the nature of the error? You could say - though I do not - that he has been played for a dupe by London and Washington. The motives at work in the larger game stand little scrutiny, as usual. But MacAskill has made a moral choice: imagine. Those can go wrong.

Megrahi, convicted of mass murder, may enjoy a startling recovery. If that happens the justice secretary and several doctors will look very stupid.

They will not become culpable, however, and they will not have deserved the insults that flow from the likes of Mueller. We do things differently. In this regard, I'm certain, we do them better.

It is America's curse that it finds the possibility inconceivable.

[An opinion piece headed "MacAskill’s crime wasn’t to release a murderer but to disobey America" in The Sunday Herald by writer and lawyer Paul Laverty contains the following sentence:

'I suspect MacAskill is castigated not so much for the release a dying man, but because he has refused to obey. US politicians expect their UK and Scottish counterparts to take up automatic poodle position just as Straw and Blair have always done. True to form New Labour in Scotland do the same; they seem more concerned with parochial point scoring or whisky sales in the US than any genuine concern for the understandable feelings of hurt on part of the families of the victims. But the great tragedy revealed by this circus is how we have collectively sacrificed our critical faculties, our sense of history, and replaced them with spineless humiliating subservience to the powerful. MacAskill's decision is a brave exception, but it is a disgrace to see him so cornered while the nauseating hypocrisy of the US goes virtually unexamined.'

An article headed "Freeing the Lockerbie bomber was the right thing to do" on the US website The Presbyterian Outlook by a Florida pastor shows that American reaction to Megrahi's repatriation is not unanimously hostile.

This is also demonstrated in two articles on the Antiwar website entitled "From My Lai to Lockerbie" and "Apologies, Anger, and Apathy" both of which can be read here.]

Doubts over witness led to fears Lockerbie trial would collapse

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Times. It reads in part:]

Prosecutors in Edinburgh and Washington feared the case against the Lockerbie bomber would collapse if their concerns over the integrity of the star witness were made public, declassified documents have revealed.

The papers show that senior Scottish and US officials privately raised doubts over his reliability and are set to trigger fresh claims of a miscarriage of justice.

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, was sentenced to 27 years by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands after being found guilty of masterminding the 1988 atrocity in which 270 people were killed.

The testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who claimed he sold clothing — believed to have been wrapped around the bomb — to a man resembling al-Megrahi, proved pivotal to securing his conviction in 2001. However, concerns were raised about the “soundness of Gauci’s identification” and the UK and US feared the case would founder if this became known.

The new information, disclosed last night, on the 33rd anniversary of the terrorist attack, has renewed calls for an appeal against al-Megrahi’s conviction.

Hans Koechler, who served as the UN’s independent observer at his trial, said: “I am even more convinced that a miscarriage of justice occurred.”

A report of a meeting between Alan Rodger, then Scotland’s lord advocate, and Robert Mueller, US assistant attorney-general, in Washington in 1992, states: “If it became known we or the US were sending people to check on the soundness of Gauci’s identification that would signal that we did not have a case on which we could confidently go to trial. The US Department of Justice maintained that they could not go to trial on the present identification.”

Gauci was the sole witness to link al-Megrahi directly to the bombing of Pan Am 103, over the town of Lockerbie.

In 2000 he told a panel of judges that al-Megrahi “resembled a lot” a man who bought clothes from his shop. But in 1992 a letter from the Crown Office to Mueller raised doubt. “Further inquiries concerning the identification made by the shopkeeper Gauci could be seized upon by those in Malta, Libya and elsewhere hostile to the conclusions of the investigation.” In 2007 it emerged that the US had paid $2 million to Gauci.

Robert Black, professor emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, who masterminded the trial, said: “It is now more obvious than ever that the Megrahi conviction is built on sand. An independent inquiry should be instituted into the case by the Scottish government, the UK government or both.”

The Crown Office said it would be inappropriate to comment further while leave to appeal (by al-Megrahi’s son Ali) is being considered by the UK Supreme Court. Police Scotland have confirmed that their investigation remains live. (...)

The confidential documents also show that British officials threatened to veto Malta’s application to join the EU if they did not back their demands over the Lockerbie bombing.

The UK and US insisted that the bomb which exploded over Scotland 33 years ago was loaded on to Air Malta flight KM-180, which left the island for Frankfurt on December 21. They contended it was then taken to London and transferred to Pan Am Flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie with the loss of 270 lives. The Maltese authorities strongly disputed this version of events, insisting it was technically impossible.

Their stance provoked considerable anxiety. A March 1992 memo to the Foreign Office from diplomatic staff in New York states: “We understand that the Maltese government is considering stating publicly that the allegation that the bomb was planted in Malta was not proven and instructed their ambassador to the UN to explain this to non-aligned members of the Security Council. We hope the Maltese government will think carefully on this and reconsider its position. The US embassy here have told us that their embassy in Valletta has been instructed to take action at the highest level.”

The Maltese were then told the UK would not support their attempt to join the European Community (EC), the precursor to the EU. (...)

The following month British officials noted with satisfaction: “Malta will now comply with mandatory sanctions, while not agreeing with them.”

Guido de Marco, Malta’s justice minister at the time of the bombing, wrote in 2010 shortly before his death that there had been “so much room for error” in the British version of events.

Officials ordered to monitor ‘troublesome’ relatives of victims

An independent investigation into the Lockerbie atrocity launched by bereaved family members posed “great potential for trouble” and should be carefully monitored, government officials were told. (...)

In 2018 relatives of the Lockerbie bomb victims told The Times they had been repeatedly bugged by the security services after official documents suggested that they needed “careful watching”.

The Rev John Mosey, a church minister who lost his teenage daughter, Helga, in the bombing, said that after speaking publicly his phone calls were often disrupted and documents relating to the bombing had gone missing from his computer.

Jim Swire, a GP who became the public face of the campaign to secure an independent inquiry into the atrocity, reported similar intrusions and deliberately included false information in private correspondence, only for it to appear in the press days later.

Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed, said: “I cannot believe that a supposedly decent country could behave in such a way towards grieving people whose only crime was to seek the truth.”

[RB: It is no surprise that those at the top of the Lockerbie prosecution team in both Scotland and the United States were gravely concerned about the quality of the evidence that Tony Gauci would give at Camp Zeist. What is surprising is that the prosecution was prepared to proceed to trial in reliance on that evidence, and that the judges at the trial found that Gauci's evidence amounted to an identification of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and that it was credible and reliable. Had they not done so, there was insufficient evidence in law for Megrahi to be convicted. 

The most rigorous analysis of Gauci's statements before and during the trial has been provided by Dr Kevin Bannon: https://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-centrepiece-of-case-against-megrahi.html. Here is part of what he found:

"The development of Tony Gauci’s statements from his first police interviews in September 1989 through to his testimony in court, reveal his recollections systematically developing in favour of the Crown narrative, in increasing contradiction of all his freshest recollections.

"... it is not merely the case (as has often been stated) that Gauci’s evidence was contradictory, but that in every aspect, it changed in favour of the Crown narrative, in some instances quite drastically. Gauci’s original, freshest recollections about the appearance of the Libyan purchaser and the time of his visit, would have, and should have, categorically eliminated al-Megrahi from suspicion.

"Gauci’s testimony, the centrepiece of the case against al-Megrahi and, by implication, the principal Libyan connection to the crime, simply has no integrity whatsoever - nevertheless he was given a substantial financial reward for his latter evidence. These discrepancies render the entire case against al-Megrahi invalid."

Had the newly released documents been available before the most recent appeal, it is possible that the Megrahi family's lawyers could have made use of them in their case. But I see no realistic prospect of a further posthumous appeal. It is now more than ever obvious that the Megrahi conviction is built on sand. What should now happen is that an independent inquiry should be instituted into the Lockerbie case by the Scottish Government, the UK Government or both in tandem. There is much evidence now available that has not been considered in any of the Scottish Lockerbie appeals, in part because of the highly restrictive rules governing what material can be made use of in Scottish criminal appeals. Only with an independent inquiry is there a possibility that the false narrative supported by the shameful conviction of Megrahi can be rectified.]

Stark double standard

[This is the heading over an article in Online Journal by specialist writer on Middle East affairs, Linda S Heard. It reads in part:]

The repatriation to Libya on compassionate grounds of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi has caused a firestorm in Britain and the US.

President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leader of Britain’s Conservative Party David Cameron have all expressed their displeasure at the Scottish justice minister’s decision to release the only individual to have been convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. Even FBI Director Robert Mueller couldn’t resist adding his two cents. He has characterized the release as an act that brings “comfort to terrorists” everywhere and “a mockery of the rule of law.”

Complicating matters further are accusations that Al-Megrahi’s release was a condition for Britain being awarded lucrative oil, gas and hotel contracts, which Prime Minister Gordon Brown denies. Yet, the Libyan president’s son Seif Al-Islam says the decision to free this terminally ill individual was always tied to trade, while a leaked letter from Downing Street to the Libyan leader makes clear that Al-Megrahi’s homecoming has been brewing ever since the G8 summit held in Italy early in July.

Many Scots believe that their government was set up by Westminster to be Britain’s patsy and are angry that so much enmity is coming their way from across the Atlantic. They may have a point...

... the Libyan authorities are being heavily criticized for giving the returnee a warm welcome. Western politicians and many families of Lockerbie victims consider this shameful, yet Libya has always protested Al-Megrahi’s innocence while ordinary Libyans view him as a loyal son of the soil who sacrificed his freedom for the good of his country. Al-Megrahi has consistently said there has been a miscarriage of justice and says he will release documentation to the British public to prove it now that his appeal has been quashed. If the appeal was heard “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the prosecution case will survive,” said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died on Pan Am 103.

Those who are incensed that Al-Megrahi gets to spend his last days with his wife and five children might at least contemplate the possibility that there was, indeed, a miscarriage of justice. Firstly, the case against him was circumstantial and relied heavily upon the testimony of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who said he recognized Al-Megrahi as the man who bought clothing in his shop, fragments of which were later found in the incendiary suitcase.

Yet, Gauci was allegedly shown photographs of Al-Megrahi and others prior to the line-up when he failed to identify him. He was then instructed to focus on Al-Megrahi’s picture when he insisted that the person who bought his clothes was much older than the man in the photo. He is also said to have been coached by prosecutors prior to giving testimony and is thought to have been offered millions of dollars in bribes to testify at trial.

When Gauci was first called to Amsterdam for the identification parade he initially said that Al-Megrahi was “not exactly the man I saw in the shop . . .” He also claimed that his buyer was over 6 feet tall whereas Al-Megrahi is much shorter at 5 feet eight inches. (...)

Moreover, a timer, a key piece of the prosecution’s material evidence, is believed to be a fake after Ulrich Lumpert, a Swiss engineer, admitted that he lied about its origins. Lumpert also said that the first time he had viewed the timer it had a brown circuit board whereas his former Zurich employer MEBO had only exported green circuit boards to Libya. Yet when the board was produced during the trial Lumpert noticed it was carbonized indicating it had subsequently been tampered with.

Last October, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that “a miscarriage of justice may have occurred” and identified six grounds for an appeal. One of these grounds may be the fact that some 18 hours prior to the New York bound Pan Am flight taking off, there had been a break-in at Heathrow’s restricted baggage area, which security officials described as a “very deliberate act” by professionals. This evidence of baggage tampering was not disclosed to the defense team prior to Al-Megrahi’s trial.

Surely, even those who doggedly insist upon Al-Megrahi’s culpability must accept that there are certainly strong reasons for doubt. And if justice hasn’t been served, this wouldn’t be the first time that British courts got it wrong. In 1991, the so-called Birmingham Six were released on appeal after serving 16 years in prison while the Guildford Four were jailed for 15 years on a false conviction.

Lastly, if Robert Mueller considers Al-Megrahi’s release “a mockery of the rule of law,” what does he say about another 1988 civil aviation tragedy?

On July 3 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 while flying within Iranian air space en route to Dubai. On that day, all 290 passengers and crew were killed, including 66 children. Ship’s Capt William C. Rogers III later said he had mistaken the Airbus A300 for an F-14 Tomcat Fighter (as though there is any resemblance), yet there was no Lockerbie-style trial for him. Instead, he became the commanding officer of the United States Navy Tactical Training Group.

The US government issued notes of regret but never admitted wrongdoing or gave Iran an apology. To add insult to injury, then US Vice President George H W Bush told the UN that the Vincennes had acted appropriately and dismissed the tragedy as a wartime incident although Tehran and Washington were not at war. And US Ambassador to Britain Charles H Price II actually sent Capt Rogers a congratulatory message, which read “I join other Americans in congratulating you for having done your duty.”

The US did, however, shell out $61.8 million to victim’s families, which is a far cry from the $1.5 billion that Libya was pressured to pay to the Lockerbie families.

The double standard here is extraordinary. Al-Megrahi, who may or may not be responsible for Lockerbie, served years behind bars, is nearing the end, and may never get the opportunity to clear his name. But Capt Rogers, who is definitely culpable for the death of 290 innocents, whether wittingly or unwittingly, was allowed to pursue his career with honor. Where is the international outrage about that?

Former Lord Advocate Boyd on Libya and Lockerbie

[There was a debate on the situation in Libya in the House of Lords on Friday, 1 April. The contribution of former Lord Advocate Lord Boyd of Duncansby (Colin Boyd) as reported in Hansard (starting on column 1496) was as follows:]

Lord Boyd of Duncansby: My Lords, as Lord Advocate I prosecuted the Lockerbie trial. I mention that not to claim any great insight into the present situation in Libya. Nor do I claim that the focus of attention should be on that one horrific incident, although I can at least bear witness to the horror of one aspect of Gaddafi's terrorism. The priority has to be the protecting of the civilian population, while ensuring a transition to a democratic state founded on the rule of law and respecting human rights. Thereafter, there are any number of criminal offences that should be addressed.

I mention Lockerbie because it has been central to our relations with Libya over the past two decades and more, and because the trial has some lessons for us in the pursuit of justice and the rule of law. Before I go any further, I say that I am speaking strictly for myself as it is four and a half years since I have been in the Crown Office and had any contact with any of the evidence. Megrahi was convicted of the murder of 270 people: 259 on Pan Am 103 and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie. Scottish terms of conviction and indictment also narrate certain factors which go along with the conviction. In this case, Megrahi was convicted while acting along with others, who were unnamed. Moussa Koussa's defection to the United Kingdom and his connection to Lockerbie have been much commented on in the past 24 hours. From my knowledge, which I emphasise is elderly, he is a "person of interest". I am pleased that the Prime Minister has acceded to the Crown Office's request that prosecutors and police should have access to him. However, he is no more than that. No warrant has been issued for his arrest, and there are others who would also be of interest. That should be borne in mind, and I say no more on the matter.

The other aspect of the conviction was that Megrahi was acting in furtherance of the aims and objectives of the JSO, the Libyan intelligence services, so the court was satisfied of the culpability of the Libyan state for what happened, acting through the agency of its intelligence service. The conviction was important in bringing to justice one of the people who was responsible for that atrocity. The trial was innovative both in being in the Netherlands and in the adaptations that were made for that purpose. I pay particular tribute to the late, lamented Robin Cook, the Foreign Secretary who was particularly important to that, and to the Foreign Office, which set it up.

Thereafter, the road becomes somewhat trickier. I choose my words carefully: there were times, more than once, when I had the strong impression that Megrahi's conviction was seen as an inconvenience and an impediment to developing relations with Libya.

I acknowledge that the rapprochement was significant and important because it led to the renunciation by Gaddafi of weapons of mass destruction. Other claims that were made for it, such as the provision of intelligence on al-Qaeda, I take with, frankly, a little more scepticism, particularly as Gaddafi is now claiming that virtually everyone who is involved in the rebellion is motivated by al-Qaeda. However, the negotiation of the prisoner transfer agreement, in the expectation-and, I suspect, the hope-that it would lead to the return of Megrahi to Libya, was an error of judgment. It was in the face of an agreement with the United States that, if convicted, he would remain in Scotland and serve his sentence there, and, importantly, of commitments that were given to American relatives-often through me, acting, as I believed at the time, on the advice of the Government of the day.

The announcement of the enhanced judicial co-operation, which included a commitment to the prisoner transfer agreement, at the same time-and I think in the same press release-as the contracts for BP, did nothing to dispel the impression that we were prepared to compromise on our principles of justice. This, along with the eventual return of Megrahi, undermined the confidence of the United States and of American relatives in our commitment to justice on this issue. One has only to have regard to the letter from Robert Mueller to the Justice Minister in Scotland, Kenny MacAskill, to understand the depth of anger that was provoked. I remind the House that if, and I stress "if", there were to be any prospect of any new trial arising out of the Lockerbie incident, or possibly on other matters that need US co-operation, that co-operation has been put in difficulty as a result of what was done by the British and Scottish Governments. Relations between prosecutors remain good but between Governments they do not.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, might I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? He appears to have overlooked the view of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on this matter; it found the conviction unsafe.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby: It did not. It said that there may have been a miscarriage of justice and referred it back to the Appeal Court. Had the appeal gone forward, it would have been the Appeal Court that ruled on that. For myself, I think it was unfortunate that that appeal was withdrawn, since the matter was then not dealt with. However, there now seems to be at least an acceptance that Libya was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing.

At the end of the trial, Louis Freeh, the then director of the FBI, telephoned me. One of the messages that he wanted to give me was that it demonstrated to the world, particularly to the United States, that we can bring justice home to terrorists with patience and international co-operation, and that the US could learn that it did not need a military response. That lesson has been lost or obscured in the aftermath of 9/11, but it is even more relevant now.

We need to bring through a strong commitment to international justice. One of the most powerful of the speeches that I have listened to today was that of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who outlined the reason for that. Through our present mission, we are promoting that international justice. I accept with limitations that we are doing the right thing and that it is legal, but we must go further.

What we have seen and witnessed in Libya is truly shocking: enforced disappearances, beatings, torture, horrific rapes and extrajudicial killings, as well as attacks on civilian populations. Holding people to account for these crimes is of vital importance, and part of that is ensuring that people are brought before the International Criminal Court or other courts as appropriate. It sends out a powerful message, not just to dictators and despots but also to those who chafe under such tyrannical regimes. If we are to build a world where human rights are universally respected, our commitment to those fundamental values must not be waived in the face of expediency.

Megrahi’s release: Kenny MacAskill was right

[This is the headline over a recent post on the blog of distinguished Scottish lawyer Jonathan Mitchell QC. The following are extracts:]

If Megrahi was indeed rightly convicted of mass murder, which I doubt, it is not in doubt that he acted on the orders of the Libyan government. He was a senior member of its intelligence service. Yet both the UK and US governments have for some years been on friendly terms with the people who, they say, ordered the desctruction of PanAm 103. They dine with them. They have cocktails with them when they meet at mutual friends. The week before Megrahi’s release, as reported in the Washington Post, a delegation of four American senators led by John McCain met with Colonel Gaddafi to discuss the sale by the US to Libya of military equipment. In April, Hilary Clinton welcomed another member of the Gaddafi family, the régime’s National Security Adviser, to Washington. She said “We deeply value the relationship between the United States and Libya. We have many opportunities to deepen and broaden our cooperation. And I’m very much looking forward to building on this relationship. So, Mr. Minister, welcome so much here.”

There is nothing wrong with prosecuting and jailing the foot-soldiers of terrorism. There is however something deeply wrong with claims that the foot-soldiers should die in prison, because their crimes are so serious, while their commanders should be forgiven, because the identical crimes have no continuing importance and because, as Republican senator Lugar says, “we need to ensure that more Americans are able to travel to Libya to do business“. The families are entitled to resent the release of Megrahi, while recognising that they can do nothing about the attitude of their governments. But British and American politicians are not. They sold this particular pass a long time ago.

When Tom Harris MP asks with such sickening sanctimoniousness “why was he considered for compassionate release when others whose crimes were, arguably, less (in quantative terms only; not in relation to the devastation caused to victims’ families) would almost certainly not be?” he might remember that his government, his party, believe that those whose criminality at least equal to Megrahi- those who gave Megrahi his orders- should be fêted.

When Iain Gray MSP claims, as he no doubt will again tomorrow at Holyrood, that if he’d been Justice Secretary he wouldn’t have released Megrahi*, a claim incidentally that is hard to believe of someone whose relationship with Westminster is that of glove-puppet to hand, he might ask himself how he distinguishes this particular murderer. “While one can have sympathy for the family of a gravely ill prisoner, on balance our duty is to honour and respect the victims of Lockerbie and have compassion for them.” ‘On balance’ indeed! Do we ‘honour and respect‘ them by wining and dining with those who ordered the bombing?

Historically, war criminals gaoled for their crimes have been held until the state holding them has moved on. Erhard Milch was responsible for tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of deaths. In 1947 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1951 that was commuted to fifteen years. In 1954 he was released. A far more serious criminal than Megrahi, he was released because the British and American governments of the day had lost interest. He was not terminally ill; he lived another eighteen years. More recently, the Westminster government released seventy-eight murderers under the Good Friday agreement. Some served only weeks or months. There is no practice in Britain of treating such crimes as the Lockerbie bombing as uniquely disqualifying from compassionate release. In applying well-established principles to this particular prisoner, principles first introduced into our law by a Conservative government, Kenny MacAskill cannot be criticised for failing to follow tradition.

The attack on the release of Megrahi, made by people who turn a blind eye to the cosy UK/US relationship with his line managers, is deeply hypocritical. Thus the call to ‘boycott Scotland’; why not boycott Indiana, for Senator Lugar’s hard work, quoted above, to forge relationships between US and Libyan security? And much of it is just ignorant. FBI Director Robert Mueller, in his much-quoted open letter to MacAskill, obviously intended primarily for US domestic consumption, thought the Justice Secretary was a ‘prosecutor‘. Geoffrey Robertson QC, who ought to know better, writes “I have read the judgment of the Lockerbie court and the two appeal judgments upholding it…” . What second appeal judgment was that? He’s just inventing it; it was never written.

We return to the straightforward facts that Megrahi is terminally ill; he is going home to die. On the undisputed facts, he falls within policy, dating back to the McConnell administration, which provide for compassionate release following the 1993 Act. As Kenny MacAskill’s statement pointed out (and I haven’t seen this description challenged as inaccurate) “guidance from the Scottish Prison Service, who assess applications, suggests that it may be considered where a prisoner is suffering from a terminal illness and death is likely to occur soon. There are no fixed time limits but life expectancy of less than three months may be considered an appropriate period. The guidance makes it clear that all prisoners, irrespective of sentence length, are eligible to be considered for compassionate release. That guidance dates from 2005“. So he had a legitimate expectation that that policy would be followed. Should that have been lost because Jack McConnell’s buddies don’t want attention to be given to their palling-up to Libya? Can Cathy Jamieson or Jim Wallace, who as justice ministers granted between them over twenty compassionate release applications, point to a single case in which an application for a terminally-ill prisoner was refused on their watch? I doubt it. (...)

Kenny MacAskill has been a fine Justice Secretary. The case against him is a failure to participate in hypocrisy and dishonesty, and that may be evidence of a lack of political realism. But good for him. He did the right thing for the right reasons.

*In fact what Iain Gray seems to be saying is that if he were First Minister he would have given unconstitutional orders to the Justice Secretary not to do so.

MacAskill followed the letter of the law

Megrahi's release is controversial. But no one can dispute the central defence for Kenny MacAskill's decision

It was a grim, dogged, desperate defence by the justice minister, Kenny MacAskill, of his decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, Adelbaset al-Megrahi, in order to let him die in Libya with his family. It was one of the most uncomfortable ministerial statements I have ever witnessed. The anguish of this decision, and its aftermath, were etched on MacAskill's face as he restated the legal grounds for what was, arguably, the most controversial decision ever taken by a Scottish minister. At the end, he was still standing – if only just.

As the questioning dragged on, MacAskill's replies became shorter and shorter as his energy flagged and his patience wore out. Only briefly did he revive when the former Labour minister, Malcolm Chisholm, rose to defend him for his "courageous" decision, which he said was "entirely consistent with both the principles of Scots Law and Christian morality, as evidenced by the widespread support of churches across Scotland". Chisholm thus disowned the argument of his own leader, Iain Gray, that MacAskill had made "the wrong decision, in the wrong way with the wrong consequences". He would have let Megrahi rot in Greenock jail until he'd breathed his last. (...)

Compassion may not be the first thing people associate with Scots law which, in times past, had a reputation for austere and unforgiving justice. But MacAskill's defence is that he acted in accordance with the laws and values of Scotland – as indeed has been accepted now by No 10 in its statement today. The Scottish justice minister is a lawyer and something of a stickler for "due process" – for following the accepted rules for coming to a legal decision. Prisoners in Scotland, no matter their crime, are eligible for release on compassionate grounds if they have a terminal illness which will likely kill them within three months. When application has been made, and provided the medical evidence is sound, the justice minister is required to consult key authorities, including the Parole Board, the prison governor and the social work agencies. This he did. All these bodies recommended that Megrahi should be released on compassionate grounds.

Of course, in the end, the decision is for the justice minister alone to take, and – as the Labour leader Iain Gray insisted – Kenny MacAskill could have exercised his discretion and refused to release Megrahi, claiming that the severity of his crime meant that it was not in the public interest, here or in America, that a terrorist should be seen to be given clemency. But MacAskill would have had to make a proper argument for this. It would not have been acceptable, for example, to say that for political reasons – to save the Scottish government from embarrassment – Megrahi should be denied compassion. Expediency is not due process.

So MacAskill took the toughest decision of his life and allowed a convicted mass murderer to be released so that he could return in triumph to Tripoli, with saltires flying on the tarmac, and be embraced by Muammar Gaddafi as a national hero. Tough call. I would not have liked to be in his shoes.

Being a lawyer made this a particularly difficult decision for MacAskill to defend, since he resorted to abstract legalistic concepts which seemed remote from the reality of what has happened, and did not connect with the emotional turmoil of the Lockerbie victims' families. He seemed insensitive, robotic, mechanical even as he was professing compassion. But that is rather the style of Scottish law, where levity is frowned upon and emotion avoided.

The argument is the whole of the law. MacAskill has been criticised for failing to keep parliament informed, for unwisely visiting Megrahi in jail, and for not exploring the possibility of the Lockerbie bomber being removed to a hospice in Scotland. But no one successfully challenged MacAskill's central defence that he had acted in accordance with the law.

Will the government fall? No. There may be a vote after parliament resumes next week, but there is no indication that the opposition parties are ready to bring down this minority administration and force an election. They could do this at any time since they have a clear majority of seats, but have no programme and no alternative first minister. Will Kenny MacAskill survive? He has the support of the first minister, his party, and of course Scots law. His decision has been endorsed by some influential voices in Scotland such as the Liberal Democrat Lord Steel, the former presiding officer, who said that the decision was correct under Scots law, and by the former Labour First Minister, Henry McLeish. Indeed, it would be perverse for MacAskill to fall as a result of following the letter of the law. No one has suggested he has acted wrongly or outside his powers, or that there could be any legal challenge to what he has done.

The UK government has not challenged MacAskill's decision – whatever the Scottish Labour leader may say – and nor has Gordon Brown personally disowned it. No 10 says that it did not "boost terrorism", rejecting the charge made by the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, yesterday. And it has to be remembered that the process that led to the repatriation of Megrahi was initiated by the British government after the "deal in the desert" in 2007 between Tony Blair and Gadaffi. (...)

The real charge against Kenny MacAskill is that his communication skills are not up to explaining – in terms ordinary people can relate to – exactly why Megrahi has been released. The answer is of course that he is dying, and you cannot punish a dead man. Nor does the Scottish legal system support the principle of the death watch, under which prisoners are incarcerated under observation until legally dead. Others may disagree, and of course many in America believe that Megrahi should have been executed for his crimes. But that is simply the way things are done here. Kenny MacAskill has done his duty, though at immense personal and political cost.

[The above are excerpts from an article on The Guardian Comment is free website by the Scottish political commentator Iain Macwhirter.]

Secret summit between Scots law chief and Libyan PM over Lockerbie bombing

[This is the headline over a report, labeled “exclusive”, published on the Daily Record website on 16 June. It reads in part:]

Scotland’s top law officer has met the Libyan PM in secret to speed up the Lockerbie bombing probe.

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland held talks in London with Abdurahim el-Keib last month.

It followed another summit between the two and FBI chief Robert Mueller in Tripoli in April.

The recent London meeting was not publicised at the time for security reasons.

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the bombing, died at his home in Libya on May 20.

Last night, a Crown Office spokesman said: “The investigation into the involvement of others with Megrahi in the Lockerbie bombing remains open and the Crown is working with Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and US authorities to pursue available lines of inquiry.

“In April, at a meeting in Tripoli, the Lord Advocate expressed his desire to the Libyan prime minister that there will be a positive response to his request for co-operation and inter-national letter of request.

“At a further meeting with the Lord Advocate in London in May, the Libyan prime minister asked for clarification on issues relating to the conduct of the proposed investigation in Libya. The Lord Advocate has undertaken to provide this.” (…)

The spokesman added: “The prime minister made it clear that he recognised the seriousness of this crime and following the clarification he would take this forward as a priority.

“As the investigation remains live, and in order to preserve its integrity, it would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”

Megrahi was freed from Greenock jail in August 2009 on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The intelligence officer always denied any responsibility for the bombing, the deadliest terror incident on UK soil.

[This story appeared in The Herald and on this blog on 25 May. So much for Daily Record exclusives!]

FOIA lawsuit against FBI regarding Megrahi release

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on January 14th against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain documents related to the United Kingdom’s release last August of convicted terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, who was serving a life sentence for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Judicial Watch seeks information that will shed light on what role, if any, the United States played in the decision to release al-Megrahi.

On August 20, 2009, the United Kingdom came under heavy fire for releasing the former Libyan intelligence officer from prison on “compassionate grounds” due to the fact al-Megrahi suffers from terminal prostate cancer. The British government also reportedly attempted to include al-Megrahi as part of a prisoner transfer pact signed with Col. Muammer al-Gadaffi’s Libyan government in 2007 in order to help secure oil contracts for British companies.

Al-Megrahi, who received a hero’s welcome upon returning to Libya, was given three months to live at the time of his release. However, now five months after his release, al-Megrahi is reportedly alive and living with his family in Libya. Convicted in 2001, al-Megrahi served only eight years of his life sentence.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, filed on January 14, seeks “all communications with/between the FBI and the United Kingdom concerning the August 20, 2009 release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the former Libyan intelligence officer who was convicted of 270 counts of murder for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.”

Judicial Watch filed its original FOIA request on September 10, 2009. By law, the FBI was required to respond by October 8, 2009. However, to date, the FBI has not provided any documents responsive to the request, nor has the agency provided an explanation as to why documents must be withheld.

“The decision to release al-Megrahi from prison was an affront to justice and an insult to the families of the victims of the Pan Am tragedy. Al-Megrahi’s release also served to rally terrorists around the world. The American people deserve to know what role, if any, the United States government played in the horrible decision to release a known terrorist from prison. Frankly, I’m concerned the Obama administration did not do enough to prevent this terrorist’s release. The FBI has an obligation to the American people and the victims’ families to release all relevant documents as soon as possible,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

[The above is the text of a press release issued by Judicial Watch. I doubt if there are any FBI documents relating to Megrahi's release, other than the idiotic letter sent by FBI Director Robert Mueller to Kenny MacAskill.]

The architect of the cover-up of the Lockerbie bombing

[What follows is the text of a letter from Professor Francis A Boyle published today on the World Socialist Web Site:]

And be sure to add to your list of FBI cover-ups since 9/11/2001 the FBI covering up the DOD/CIA origins of the anthrax attacks in October 2001. See my book Biowarfare and Terrorism (2005). The retiring FBI Director Mueller was also the architect of the cover-up of the Lockerbie bombing, blaming Libya instead of whoever the real culprits were: see my book Destroying Libya and World Order (2013).  I would recommend your readers have a look at Swearingen, FBI Secrets (South End Press). There the author, a retired and decorated FBI agent, repeatedly calls the FBI “an American Gestapo.” The FBI/CIA also put me on all the US government’s terrorist watch lists when I refused to become an informant for them on my Arab and Muslim clients. QED.

Lockerbie: 'We need the truth'

[This is the headline over an article published on 7 June in the Exeter Express and Echo.  It reads in part:]

The father of an Exeter schoolgirl killed in the Lockerbie disaster is continuing his fight for the full truth to come out after the death of the only man so far convicted of the bombing. (...)

[Melina Hudson] was flying home for the Christmas break after spending the term at Exeter School as part of an exchange programme. (...)

Melina's father Paul Hudson, who spoke exclusively to the Echo from his Florida home, has been a leading campaigner seeking justice for his daughter and the other victims.

Mr Hudson, who is the president of the Families of Pan Am 103 group, expressed hope that with Megrahi and former Libyan dictator Gaddafi both now dead, the authorities will reveal the truth behind the atrocity.

He said: "As the Lord Advocate (Frank Mulholland) and the FBI Director (Robert Mueller) have travelled to Libya and presented a letter requesting Libyan government co-operation, I am hopeful that, with appropriate pressure by the US and UK, the investigation can finally go forward.

"The Libyans have promised to co-operate on several occasions but have never followed through and until now have never been pressed.

"Megrahi has been implicated by new evidence after the trial but his defenders only mention the evidence they claim casts doubt on his conviction, and did not present sufficient evidence to reverse the guilty verdict according to two appeal decisions. [RB: I am not aware of any new evidence implicating Megrahi after his trial. Only one appeal decision in the case was ever issued. The limitations under which that appeal court operated are explained in this article, section headed “The Appeal”.]

"Without vigorous pursuit of the investigation now that Gaddafi is gone, not only will justice not be done and the truth not come out, but the integrity of the UK, Scottish and US justice systems will be sullied with allegations of corruption, manipulation and the manufacturing of evidence."

Hopes of finding the truth may now rest with a group of people in Libya previously close to the Gaddafi regime.

One is interim president, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, a former Gaddafi justice minister, who has claimed he has evidence Gaddafi ordered the bombing.

Another target could be Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted.

Attention could also return to Abdullah Senussi, Gaddafi's brother-in-law and security chief. Mr Senussi is currently under arrest in Mauritania, awaiting extradition proceedings – either to Libya, or The Hague, where he has been indicted on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court.

Mr Hudson added: "Libya should defer to the US criminal investigation. US support was key to Gaddafi being overthrown. Senussi now has every reason to co-operate with US investigators in naming names of those involved in the Lockerbie bombing and potentially avoiding extradition to Libya."

The crumbling Lockerbie case

[This is the headline over an article published today on the Consortium News website. It reads as follows:]

A quarter century ago, the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people and later was pinned on a Libyan agent. In 2011, Lockerbie was used to justify a US-backed war to oust Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, but the evidence now suggests the case was a miscarriage of justice, John Ashton writes.

Dec 21, 2013, marked the 25th anniversary of what, until 9/11, was the worst terrorist attack on US civilians. A total of 270 people died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie; 189 of the dead were Americans.

Officially the crime was partially solved on Jan 31, 2001, when Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of the murders by a panel of three senior Scottish judges, sitting at a specially convened Scottish court at Kamp Zeist in The Netherlands. His co-defendant, Lamin Fhimah, was acquitted.

As Megrahi was allegedly a puppet of the Gaddafi regime the Scottish and US prosecutors have vowed to pursue those who were pulling his strings. The ex-FBI Director Robert Mueller said on the 25th anniversary that he expected further charges to be brought. Yet, to most of those who have scrutinized the Megrahi conviction – and Consortiumnews.com is one of the few U.S. media outlets to have done so (see here, here and here) – it is, at best, odd and, at worst, a sham.

One of the UN trial observers, Professor Hans Koechler, noted: “there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime. In such a context, the guilty verdict in regard to the first accused appears to be arbitrary, even irrational,” while eminent Scottish lawyer Ian Hamilton QC has said, “I don’t think there’s a lawyer in Scotland who now believes Mr Megrahi was justly convicted.”

More importantly, in 2007, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, a statutory body that reviews alleged miscarriages of justice, referred the conviction back to the appeals court on no fewer than six grounds, one of which was that the trial court’s judgment was unreasonable. Shockingly, four of the other grounds concerned the non-disclosure of important evidence by the prosecution. Sadly, Megrahi succumbed to pressure to abandon the appeal, shortly before his release from prison on compassionate grounds in August 2009.

More Promising Leads

Another reason to doubt the official line that the bombing was a solely Libyan operation is that there is ample circumstantial evidence that it was commissioned by Iran (possibly in retaliation for the U.S. military shoot-down of an Iranian airliner on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people) and carried out by a radical Palestinian group, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC).

Two months before the Pan Am 103 attack, on Oct 26, 1988, the group was caught red-handed by the German federal police with a barometric bomb designed to explode at altitude. The police also uncovered a huge terrorist arsenal, which the group had amassed in an apartment in Frankfurt, the city from which PA103’s feeder flight, PA103A, would originate. Like the Lockerbie bomb, the barometric bomb had been built into a Toshiba radio cassette player. Although it was a single-speaker model – the Lockerbie device had twin speakers – by a rather sick twist, both models were from Toshiba’s BomBeat range.

The man who made the German bomb, Marwan Khreesat, turned out to be a mole for both the Jordanian and German intelligence services. He told the police that he had made five bombs, only four of which were recovered. He and another PFLP-GC member, Mobdi Goben, who led the group’s Yugoslavian cell, confirmed that the organization had other bomb makers and that the Oct 26 raids did not snare all of its German operatives.

Significantly, both men independently named a member with the nomme de guerre Abu Elias as the operation’s linchpin. His true identity remains unknown. Declassified U.S. intelligence documents stated as fact that Iran and the PFLP-GC were behind the bombing. Another, written months after the investigation had shifted decisively to Libya, said that Iranian interior minister had paid $10 million for the hit.

The increasingly rickety “Libya-did-it” line appeared to receive a much-needed boost 2½ years ago with the fall of the Gaddafi regime. At the start of the revolution, in early 2011, the opposition leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil, who had been Gaddafi’s justice minister, told the Swedish newspaper Expressen that he had proof that his old boss was responsible for Lockerbie. Other senior government defectors implicated the old regime in the bombing.

So, when Scotland’s prosecution service, the Crown Office, announced that it would be seeking the cooperation of the new Libyan government to gather evidence against Megrahi’s alleged co-conspirators, Lockerbie watchers were braced for some rapid developments.

Getting Nowhere

Unfortunately for the Crown Office and police, in the intervening 2½ years, they appear to have got precisely nowhere. Last December, Libya’s new UK ambassador, Mahmud Nacua, said that his government would be happy to open all of its Lockerbie files to the police, but added that this would only happen when the government had fully established security and stability – a process he believed would take at least a year. A year on, there’s no hint that the files are about to be opened.

It was not until February 2013 that the police, prosecutors and the FBI got to visit Tripoli to speak to the new government. Embarrassingly, no sooner had they left than the new deputy justice minister, Hameda al-Magery, told the Daily Telegraph that the case was closed.

The Crown Office swiftly issued a press release, which described the discussions with the Libyans as “positive” and added “it is hoped there will be further progress as a result.” That hope seems increasingly forlorn. Only last month did the Libyan government appoint prosecutors to work on the case with Scottish and US investigators.

The development was hailed as a “significant step” by Scotland’s chief prosecutor, the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland. That is one interpretation, but, when viewed as a whole, the events since Gaddafi’s fall suggest that the Libyans might be trying to put off the day when they have to admit to the Scots and FBI that the cupboard is bare: they have no evidence of the Gaddafi regime’s involvement.

Since Gaddafi’s fall, the only document about the case to surface publicly from his regime’s files is a letter from Megrahi to his relative, Gaddafi’s security chief Abdullah Sennousi, in which, according to the Wall Street Journal, he protested his innocence and blamed his plight on “the immoral British and American investigators” who “knew there was foul play and irregularities in the investigation.”

What, then, of Mustafa Abdel Jalil’s proof? When asked about it on BBC Newsnight, the best he could offer was the fact that Gaddafi’s government had paid Megrahi’s legal bills. A year later Jalil insisted in another newspaper interview that Expressen had misquoted him, adding: “All I said then is what I say right now, which is that the regime was involved in this case, evident by insisting [Megrahi] returns [to Libya] and that they spent a lot of money on him while he was in jail.”

It was preposterous to claim that the old regime’s funding of Megrahi’s legal defense, and its efforts to secure his return to Libya, was evidence of its guilt.

Exonerating Evidence

While the police investigation in Libya has stalled, the police and Crown Office are studiously ignoring new evidence that destroys the case against Megrahi and Libya. It concerns the most important physical evidence of the entire case, a tiny fragment of circuit board, known by its police reference number of PT/35b, which was allegedly part of the bomb’s timer.

According to the prosecution case, the fragment matched boards in timers designed and built for the Libyan intelligence service by a Swiss firm called Mebo. During preparations for Megrahi’s aborted second appeal, his legal team (with whom I worked as a researcher) discovered that the fragment could not have originated from one of the Libyan timers’ boards, because it bore a crucial metallurgical difference.

When combined with a wealth of existing anomalies concerning the fragment’s provenance, the discovery strongly suggested that it was a fake that was planted in order to implicate Libya. According to the published memoir of the head of the FBI’s Lockerbie investigation, Richard Marquise, his opposite number in the Swiss police also suspected the fragment was a plant.  The thought even occurred to Marquise and the Scottish police’s senior investigating officer, Stuart Henderson.

Why, then, have the Scottish police and Crown Office failed to approach the witnesses who can attest to the mismatch between the fragment and the Libyan timers – witnesses who include the man who made the boards used in the those timers, and two independent scientists? The obvious answer is that they want to avoid evidence that shows the official case to be built on sand.

John Ashton, who worked as a defense investigator on the Pan Am 103 case, is the author of Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters.