The Damned Crown

[This is the headline over an article by Justice for Megrahi’s secretary, Robert Forrester, published today (with an accompanying news item) on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm.  It reads in part:] 

Last week we were treated to an embarrassment of riches courtesy of Number 25 Chambers Street. Firstly, we see Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, jetting off to Libya accompanied by his minder, Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, in an attempt to gain some small advantage in the media war over the Zeist conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. And, secondly, we had this from a Crown Office representative: “Even if the evidence about Heathrow had been heard by the trial court, it would not have reached a different verdict. The Crown was in the process of robustly defending the investigation and conviction when Mr Megrahi chose to abandon his second appeal.” 

In this one brief, devastating statement from the Crown, any quaint notion that the public may have that the Crown serves the interests of justice rather than the aggressive securing of convictions, no matter what contrary evidence might stand in its way, is dispelled. 

Irrespective of the outcome of the first appeal, where the Heathrow break in was raised, to say that the trial court “would not have reached a different verdict” had it been aware of the evidence at the time is to grossly prejudge the outcome of the trial and in no way legitimises the withholding of evidence from the defence. In short, it is a travesty of justice.

On top of the recent accusations of the withholding of evidence by the Crown to the defence (regarding Crown witness Abdul Majid Giaka) levelled at Colin Boyd, Lord Advocate at the time of the Zeist trial, the above Crown Office statement is a response to yet further information concerning the Crown’s withholding of evidence. According to the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary, police did not submit evidence to the Crown about a break in to Heathrow airside in the vicinity of the loading bay for flight 103, which took place a matter of hours prior to the departure of the plane, until 1999 (a decade after the event was reported by Heathrow security guard Ray Manly and a year prior to the commencement of the Zeist trial). Moreover, the Crown failed to avail the defence team of the occurrence. It was only after the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi for the crime that the break in became public knowledge, when Mr Manly approached the defence team with his evidence. 

 

The Zeist trial would likely not have materialised at all had it not been for the CIA evidence garnered from Giaka. Elements of which evidence the Crown attempted to withhold from the defence. His evidence was largely dismissed by the court as being that of a fantasist. The baton of star witness then passed to Toni Gauci, a man whose evidence is riddled with inconsistency and which also seems to have come on the back of a tempting $2,000,000 carrot (plus $1,000,000 for his brother Paul) provided by the US Department of Justice. Even the key material evidence, in the form of a shard of PCB, looks highly likely to have been a plant.

Many have long maintained, with considerable justification, that the Zeist judgement of an invisible bomb suitcase operated by a simple countdown timing trigger being transferred from Malta to Frankfurt then on to Heathrow is a complete flight of overly active imaginations. There are indeed areas of the judgement, particularly surrounding Mr Gauci, that give the distinct impression that under Scots Law the burden of proof is on the defence and that the accused is guilty until proven innocent. The attitude of the Crown as displayed in this statement supports this view. 

 

What is being said is that it doesn’t matter whether or not the trial court was in possession of the evidence about the Heathrow break in since, in our estimation, al-Megrahi would still have been convicted. On the basis of what? The first appeal? One cannot prejudge the outcome of a trial of fact by the judgement of an appeal which is circumscribed by quite different parameters. Quite apart from the fact that by withholding evidence the Crown is brazenly flouting the interests of justice and is quite probably a criminal offence in itself, it demonstrates a deeply unhealthy bias on the part of the Crown, and suggests the corruption of the trial court. In short, this revealing statement speaks volumes on the attitude of the Crown to this case. It is a national outrage that the Crown should be attempting to support such practices and only acts to substantiate the increasingly commonly held view that Zeist was, what is known in the trade as, a stitch up. 

The bereaved attended Zeist innocently thinking that the Crown was serving the interests of justice. By the end of the trial many had concluded that they had been duped and that the Crown was simply aiming to produce a conviction at any cost. It now looks like they were right.

How has this come about? The now common practice of successive Scottish governments of promoting Crown Office insiders lacking wider experience and practice within the justice system surely does not help. This can only promote the type of canteen culture that Michael Mansfield QC has said afflicts the forensic services, whereby they have come to see themselves as existing to secure convictions despite what contrary evidence may be indicating. Such a practice, given that the Crown so obviously no longer serves the interests of justice, can only act to produce further miscarriages of justice. Here the Crown is saying that it doesn’t matter that we withheld evidence, you ought all to be happy that we secured a conviction against the odds that we, fortunately, were able to manipulate in our favour. And, by the way, if you want to blame anyone, blame Mr al-Megrahi for dropping his second appeal when he didn’t have to. So, it is all the fault of a man convicted on highly dubious evidence, who, upon receiving a visit from the Cabinet secretary for Justice and a delegation of Libyan representatives, suddenly and quite unexpectedly gives up hope of clearing is name in order to guarantee his repatriation and see out his last days in the company of his family. How convenient that he should drop an appeal which looked very likely to result in the quashing of his conviction. The bereaved must also be delighted to hear that the Crown is handing responsibility for the interests of justice over to a convicted mass murderer. 

 

All governments need professional advisers, without them, the work of government would come to a grinding halt. It, therefore, goes without saying that governments must invest a considerable degree of trust in these advisers. However, the current Scottish Government is going well beyond the basic and necessary trust in its legal advisers, the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office, when it says that they, the government, “do not doubt the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction.” This is blind faith. What is more, the government, at every turn, obliges the wishes of the Crown by legislating to make any formal questioning of the Zeist verdict as difficult as possible. Who was behind the formulation of the 2009 Order, which, although it was claimed that its purpose was to facilitate the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for Mr al-Megrahi’s second appeal, had the effect, due to its wording, of doing precisely the opposite? Who was behind the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, Part 2, which, again because of its wording, was ostensibly designed to do precisely the same: block the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons, and which crashed and burned with the publication of the document by The Herald newspaper, to the blushes of Chambers Street? Who was behind the Criminal Procedure (Legal Assistance, Detention and Appeals) (Scotland) Bill, section 7, emergency legislation passed when there was no emergency and which acts to allow the High Court of Justiciary to reject applications for appeal which question its own judgements? What we are witnessing here is a case of the tail wagging the dog. The Scottish government must stand up for those who elect it and question the advice it is being fed by the Crown. It is not simply that a petition is sitting open before the Justice Committee supported by 1,646 signatories garnered in a period of two weeks active online. 

With this statement from the Crown, it is clear that the institution has now most publicly and openly damned itself. The government must act if anything is ever to be salvaged of the Scottish criminal justice system. 

Perhaps before swanning off to Tripoli at the taxpayer’s expense in order to try to notch up points in the publicity war, Mr Mulholland should bear in mind that thus far the protestations of Abdel-Jalil have produced zero. Likewise the Scottish delegation that interviewed Moussa Koussa produced an own-goal when he published a statement denying Libyan involvement in Lockerbie after being released to his freedom and bank accounts to live in Qatar. And again, the efforts of UK lawyer Jason McCue to get the Libyan rebels to sign up to Libyan guilt for Lockerbie also produced a large, fat, round zero, even with the carrot of access to the nation’s frozen overseas assets being dangled in front of their noses. The attitude of the Crown being as it is, if the Lord Advocate and his associates at the FBI actually do find anything incriminating in Libya, it is plain that, whatever it is, will have to be put under an electron microscope by an independent forensic lab in a neutral country.

There are now no longer any excuses. The government is fully aware that precedent exists for opening inquiries into judicial decisions. Can of worms or no can of worms, it must be opened, and, at this stage in the proceedings, the ball is firmly in the court of the Scottish Government to resolve this issue. The Crown Office can clearly no longer be trusted in this matter. For how long is the Scottish Government going to look on as the Crown continues to fight this embarrassing rear guard action after what is tantamount to a self confession to its own gross malpractice?

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.]

The importance of the rule of law

[This is the title of an address given by the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller III, at the National Symposium for United States Court of Appeals Judges, held in Washington DC on 4 November 2011. It reads in part:]

We in the FBI face significant and evolving criminal and terrorist threats. Regardless of the threats we face or the changes we make, we must act within the confines of the Constitution and the rule of law -- every day, in every investigation. Indeed, the rule of law remains our guiding principle -- our lodestar. (...)

How do we prosecute a case where the crime has migrated from one country to the next, with victims around the world? How do we overcome these jurisdictional hurdles and distinctions in the law from country to country?

As a prosecutor for the Department of Justice, I worked with our counterparts in Scotland to investigate the bombing of Pan Am 103 in 1988. With this attack, terrorism hit home for Americans in a profound way.

But for those of us in law enforcement, it brought to light the importance of international partnerships as a bridge between conflicting legal systems. It also brought to light the need for a global presence to meet global threats.

Investigators from Scotland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the United States worked together in ways we had never experienced before. Partnerships like those forged in Lockerbie have never been more important.

Today, we all understand that working side-by-side is not just the best option, it is the only option. (...)

The FBI has always adapted to meet new threats. And we must continue to evolve to prevent terrorist and criminal attacks, because terrorists and criminals certainly will. But our values can never change.

Regardless of emerging threats, the impact of globalization, or changing technology, the rule of law will remain our guiding principle.

It is fair to say that the FBI has had missteps over the years. But these missteps and mistakes have provided opportunities to improve. And though it may be a cliché to say we have come out of such situations stronger and smarter, it is true.

[Some other Lockerbie-related contributions from and about Mr Mueller can be read here, here and here.]

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.

Megrahi, other Lockerbie bombers must face justice

[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of the New York Daily News.  It reads as follows:]

Justice, so very long delayed, may finally be coming to the families of those murdered on Pan Am Flight 103.

It has been 23 years since the Pan Am plane bound for JFK from London was blasted out of the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people — most of them Americans, many of them New Yorkers.

It has been 23 years of excruciating failure to bring those responsible to justice. In 2009, victims’ loved ones watched powerlessly as the only man convicted for his role in the crime, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, was released from a Scottish prison — and given a hero’s welcome in Libya.

The Libyans and the Scottish courts then insisted Megrahi had late-stage prostate cancer and was sure to die within a matter of weeks, but he has yet to do the world the honor of keeling over.

And the notion that this was a one-man crime has always offended common sense.

Now, fingers crossed, comes the possibility of some clarity.

Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller and US Attorney General Eric Holder met with Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, to start a new investigation into who, exactly, brought down the jetliner.
Part of the reason a new probe could bear fruit is that the fall of Moammar Khadafy’s regime has suddenly made former Libyan government functionaries more willing to speak honestly about his policy of state-sponsored terrorism — perhaps for no other reason than to settle old scores.

That’s all well and good, as long as they tell the truth about Lockerbie.

Among the potential witnesses are former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who may finally be eager to talk about what role their government played in the attack — and who else was involved.

One obvious candidate is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted. Also suspected are Khafady’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who then led Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, former head of airline security.

As for Megrahi, every breath he continues to draw reminds those who suffer of how much damage was done and how few perpetrators have paid the price.

In a talk with the BBC published right after the Dec. 21 anniversary of the attack — one advertised by the convicted murderer as his “last interview” — Megrahi brazenly said, “I am an innocent man. I am about to die and I ask now to be left in peace with my family.”

To be with family — that is exactly what Megrahi and his accomplices denied their victims at Lockerbie. They must pay for it once and for all.

[ “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.  The truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

 “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

 “Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”

The above are three quotations from, or attributed to, Joseph Goebbels.]

"It’s a long process but I’m not giving up" says Lord Advocate

[What follows is the Lockerbie portion of an article reporting on an exclusive interview given by Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser:]

A steely determination to seek the truth and deliver justice has catapulted Coatbridge-born Frank Mulholland to the powerful top law post in Scotland of Lord Advocate.

And in an exclusive interview with the Advertiser this week, the nation’s top prosecutor reveals his views on the Lockerbie bombing (...)

The 53-year-old former St Bernard’s Primary and St Columba’s High School pupil told how he will not give up on the Lockerbie bombing investigation (...)

Mr Mulholland travelled to Libya in April with the director of the FBI Robert Mueller to discuss opportunities for stepping up the probe into the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people.

He said: “Going to Libya was the right thing to do.

“The Interim Prime Minister made very helpful statements regarding co-operation.

“I was looked after by a lot of good people and felt safe under their security.

“I would go back if there was good reason to do so and if my visit was not putting others at risk.

“It’s a long process but I’m not giving up. A lot of people lost their lives.”

[Be assured, Mr Mulholland, Justice for Megrahi is not giving up either, notwithstanding Crown Office bluster.]

Embellishing intelligence reporting to fit a preconceived outcome

[What follows is excerpted from an article by John Holt published today in The Blogs section of the website of The Times of Israel:]

As a former CIA operations officer, I am breaking 20 years of silence about one of the most heinous plane bombings on record, Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988. I can now tell you, as I have been telling the CIA and FBI since being interviewed by them in early 2000, that I and many other intelligence officers do not believe that Libya is responsible for the bombing. Iran, as the original evidence clearly showed, is the true perpetrator of this deadly attack and should be brought to justice.

Two weeks ago, just before stepping down as US attorney general, William Barr, who was also AG in 1992 and oversaw the investigation and indictment of the case, announced new charges against a Libyan man known as Masud for supposedly constructing the bomb that detonated on the plane. I believe Barr and the Justice Department announced this new indictment purely for the purpose of shoring up Barr’s original, faulty 1991 indictments.

The evidence and logic in the current case against Mr Masud are as flimsy as the cases were two decades ago when Barr steered focus away from the obvious culprit, Iran.

I know Libya is not behind the bombing because I was the long-time handler for the principal US government witness Abdul Majid Giaka, a Libyan agent who never provided any evidence pointing to Libya or any indication of knowing anything about that nation’s involvement in the two years after the bombing. Yet years later, he testified against the convicted Libyan intelligence officer, Abdel Basset al-Megrahi, at the Lockerbie bombing (Pan Am 103) trial conducted at The Hague in 2000.

The US Government prevented my testimony and hid from evidence the cables I wrote that proved Giaka knew nothing. When my cables were finally released to the trial at the demand of the defense, the court dismissed Giaka along with the two CIA operations officers sent to the trial to testify to his credibility.

Yet today, the charade continues. The FBI acknowledges they have not even interviewed Mr Masud themselves and are entirely dependent on an 8-year-old statement by an unnamed Libyan police officer from a country in the midst of a devastating civil war. Moreover, Masud had no history or signature for making the type of bomb that brought down Pan Am 103 nor for concealing bombs in Toshiba radios. The PFLP-GC (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command) did.

We just observed the 32nd anniversary of the bombing of Pan Am 103. It is time to drop the routine CIA procedure of embellishing intelligence reporting to fit a preconceived outcome rather than following the facts. The families of Pan Am flight 103 victims have suffered long enough and deserve to now be able to rest assured that the real perpetrators of this act of terrorism, Iranian actors, are brought to justice.

I am asking that the case be reexamined due to the availability of evidence against Iran and irregularities in the US government presentation of evidence at the first trial. The son of the man convicted made a similar request. He recently appealed the conviction of his father to the High Court in Scotland. The panel of five judges is currently reviewing the appeal, which was presented in late November 2020.

Now is the time for former Attorney General Barr, who signed the original warrants against Megrahi, and former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who led the DOJ investigation, to answer some questions: If Libya is truly the culprit, why did the US not indict Libyan intelligence chief Sanussi, who has reportedly been sitting in a Libyan jail since that nation’s revolution in 2011, and would have been in charge of any such high profile operation at the time of the bombing? And why was credible evidence pointing toward Iran ignored, given Iran’s clear motive for the attack as retaliation for the downing of a civilian Iran Air Airbus and its proven capacity to carry out attacks similar to the bombing over Lockerbie? (...) 

Mulholland and FBI in secret Libya mission

This is the headline over a report in Wednesday's edition of The Herald regarding the Libya visit of Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC and FBI Director Robert Mueller.  The report can be read here. The report on the BBC News website can be read here; Thursday's edition of The Scotsman also runs a story which can be read here; The Herald on Thursday has an article which can be read here. It also has a report about the failure of the police to hand over to the defence (and only very much later than it was discovered to the Crown) details in their possession about the Heathrow break-in in the baggage build-up area just hours before the destruction of Pan Am 103.


The Firm's report on the Mulholland visit to Libya, headlined "Mulholland's visit to Libya a 'charade'", and featuring a statement from Justice for Megrahi can be read here.

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!]

Clinton: We'll investigate Gadhafi over Pan Am 103

[This is the headline over a report published today on the MSNBC website. It reads in part:]

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration may seek the prosecution of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

Responding to a question by Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle, R-NY, about what the US is doing to build a case against Gadhafi, Clinton said that former Gadhafi officials have made statements in the past few days that he was behind the terrorist attack and that the U.S. would "move expeditiously." (...)

Clinton said that she would be in touch with FBI Director Robert Mueller and Attorney General Eric Holder on Tuesday about how to move on this case. (...)

If there is evidence that he was behind the attack, Clinton said, that would be one of the many counts against Gadhafi in the international criminal court "if he is ever captured alive for justice proceedings."

Clinton said it was a matter of personal importance for her given that she used to represent the Syracuse area. Thirty-five students from Syracuse University were aboard the flight, coming home from overseas study.

Over the weekend, the former Libyan justice minister was quoted as saying the man convicted of the bombing had blackmailed Gadhafi into securing his release by threatening to expose his role in the attack.

The Sunday Times newspaper quoted Mustafa Abdel-Jalil as saying that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi had warned Gadhafi that he would "reveal everything" about the bombing if he wasn't rescued from a Scottish prison.

Abdel-Jalil told a Swedish tabloid last week that he had proof Gadhafi had personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. He did not describe the proof.

Al-Megrahi was the only man convicted for the attack, which killed 270 people. He was released in 2009 on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with prostate cancer. He remains alive.

[Any genuine investigation into the role (if any) played by Gaddafi in the Lockerbie bombing would be most welcome, as Dr Jim Swire says in this report on the Channel 4 News website. A genuine investigation would inevitably discover that the version of events accepted by the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist was fallacious. This, of course, is precisely the reason why no such investigation can realistically be anticipated.]

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.]

Commemoration of Pan Am 103 at Arlington National Cemetery

[This is the headline over an article published late yesterday on the Consumer Travel Alliance website.  It reads as follows:]

Today, December 21, 2012, is the 24th anniversary of the Pan Am 103 bombing which killed 270 and remains the second worst terrorist attack in history against Americans after 9/11.

A memorial service was held alongside the Flight 103 Cairn at Arlington National Cemetery from 1:30 to 3:00 pm. It featured speeches by the US Attorney General Eric Holder [full text here], FBI Director Robert Mueller [full text here], TSA [Transport Security Administration] Administrator John Pistole [full text here], and Frank Duggan of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103. [RB: I have not been able find Mr Duggan's remarks online. This is probably a blessing.]

On this cold, gray and windy day, America’s top-ranking law enforcement officers paid their respects to those killed in this act of terrorism.

At the same time Families of Pan Am 103/Lockerbie, an organization of family members of the Pan Am 103 bombing victims, launched a major petition drive demanding the Governments of United States and Libya fulfill their longstanding promises of cooperation in the U.S. criminal investigations of numerous terrorist attacks against Americans by Libyans and bring those responsible to justice. The form to sign the petition is here.

Here is the petition text:

Expressing the disappointment, concern and increasing frustration and anger of the families and friends of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing and all Americans at the failure of the United States to properly investigate the Pan Am 103 bombing (which killed 270 on December 21, 1988 over Lockerbie Scotland and remains the second worst terrorist attack in history against Americans) and other terrorist attacks and the failure of Libya to grant permission for US criminal investigators to gather evidence in Libya or fulfill its promises and obligations to fully cooperate with US criminal investigations of terrorist attacks against Americans, including most recently the murder of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans on September 11th, 2012.

Whereas since 1989, hundreds of Pan Am 103 victims’ family members have pursued civil and criminal justice against those responsible for the murder of their loved ones;

Whereas there has been no known progress or criminal investigation developments since the indictments of two Libyan intelligence agents over 20 years ago and the conviction of one over 11 years ago, notwithstanding Libya’s formal promises to the UN in 2003 to fully cooperate with US criminal investigations and comply with numerous international anti-terrorism agreements, and notwithstanding renewed promises by the Libyan Transitional National Council leader in 2011 to provide new evidence and newly available witnesses and suspects in Libya;

Whereas Libya has recently granted permission to the United Kingdom for investigation within Libya by United Kingdom criminal investigators of a London police woman’s murder outside the Libyan embassy;

Whereas Libya has promised repeatedly (in 2003, 2011, 2012 and previously) to cooperate with the United States in the Pan Am 103 investigation;

Whereas the United States provided in 2011 essential support in protecting many of those now in the Libyan government and the Libyan people from being killed in masse by Gaddafi forces;

Whereas the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been claiming for 24 years that this is ‘the largest murder investigation in US history’ but with no visible results since 2000;

Whereas Senussi, former head of Gaddafi’s infamous External Security Organization that sponsored and carried out Gaddafi regime terrorism against the U.S. and other Western nationals and assassinations of exiled Gaddafi opponents, has now been sent back to Libya by Mauritania;

Whereas there is still no indication that the United States has sought to use its many tools of witness protection and relocation, terrorist reward programs, interrogation of Senussi, or former Gaddafi intelligence chief Musa Kusa in Qatar, and has not responded to the United Kingdom critics who claim that the evidence convicting Megrahi was flawed and/or fabricated by the United States DOJ and FBI;

Whereas, Libya is presently criminally prosecuting two former Libyan officials for “waste of public funds” in paying compensation to the families of Pan Am 103 victims; and

Whereas the Government of Libya has made no arrests in the September 2012 terrorist murders of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and has failed to fully cooperated with US criminal investigations:

NOW, therefore, the undersigned hereby petition and request that

(1) The Congress of the United States hold oversight hearings requiring that the FBI and Department of Justice report on the status of the investigation into the Pan Am 103, including by explaining and releasing appropriate records showing—

(A) why since 2000 it has apparently failed to gather any evidence or interview witnesses (including former Justice Minister and former Chairman of the Libyan Transitional National Council Mustapha M A Jalil, who has publicly claimed to have proof of Gaddafi and others direct involvement) regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing;

(B) why the US Office of Foreign Assets Control has removed all travel and financial sanctions on Musa Kusa, former Gaddafi intelligence chief, stated by former US CIA Director George Tenet to be responsible for American bloodshed;

(C) why the Department of Justice and Department of State did not seek extradition from Mauritania of Senussi, who was named in United States indictments and convicted by France of the 1989 UTA jumbo jetliner bombing that murdered 170, including 6 U.S. citizens and Bonnie Pew, wife of the US Ambassador to Chad;

(D) why the Department of Justice never sought nor obtained access to Megrahi, the only person convicted of the Pan Am 103 mass murder who was imprisoned in the United Kingdom for 9 years, prior to his death in Tripoli in 2012;

(E) why, in over 20 years of what the Department of Justice often claimed was the biggest murder investigation in its history, has never named any of the Pan Am 103 terrorists except two low level Libyan intelligence agents;

(F) what resources the Department of Justice has devoted to the Pan Am 103 bombing criminal investigation and the costs of this investigation especially since 2000; and

(G) what requests or demands the United States made to Libya since 1989 for cooperation in the criminal investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing and what responses if any were received;

(2) That the Government of Libya promptly grant the United States permission to investigate in Libya the Pan Am 103 bombing and other acts of terrorism by Libyan nationals against United States citizens (as it has repeatedly promised but so far failed to do) and permit the US to have a secure location on Libya territory to conduct such investigations.

(3) That unless the US Attorney General and the President of the United States certify to the US Congress by February 21, 2013 that Libya has fully cooperated with the Pan Am 103 bombing and the US consulate attack investigations, that new US and UN sanctions be imposed against Libya for sheltering terrorist murderers of hundreds of Americans and other nationals and for failing to cooperate with US criminal investigations to bring those responsible to justice.

Dated: December 21st, 2012

Will Abdelbaset al-Megrahi die before Saif al-Islam takes the stand?

[This is the headline over an item published today on the Anorak website.  It reads in part:]

Will Abdelbaset al-Megrahi die before Saif al-Islam takes the stand?

Human Rights Watch says Colonel Gaddafi’s son is being held in solitary confinement in Zintan, in the Nafusa Mountains of western Libya. He has no access to lawyers. Saif al-Islam has had the ends of his right-hand forefinger and thumb amputated – they became infected after being damaged in a Nato air strike.

Saif al-Islam faces two trials on corruption and war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court. (...)

Al-Megrahi denies being a killer.  The headline in The Times quotes him: “These are my last words: I am innocent”. (...)

If not al-Megrahi, who? The NY Daily News tosses up names:

"Last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder met with Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, to start a new investigation into who, exactly, brought down the jetliner.

"Part of the reason a new probe could bear fruit is that the fall of Moammar Khadafy’s regime has suddenly made former Libyan government functionaries more willing to speak honestly about his policy of state-sponsored terrorism — perhaps for no other reason than to settle old scores.

"That’s all well and good, as long as they tell the truth about Lockerbie.

"Among the potential witnesses are former Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil and former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa, who may finally be eager to talk about what role their government played in the attack — and who else was involved.

"One obvious candidate is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted. Also suspected are Khafady’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who then led Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, former head of airline security."

Names and lies and money. Who now speaks for the 270?

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland meets FBI over Lockerbie bombing probe

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Daily Record.  It reads in part:]

Scotland's top lawman has held talks with the FBI over plans to step up new inquiries into the Lockerbie bombing.

Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland met FBI director Robert Mueller and US Attorney Gereral Eric Holder in Washington last night.

It came as both countries prepare to send investigators to Libya to seek new evidence and speak to witnesses inthe hope of staging a second trial over the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Mulholland said: “The meeting was to renew rapport over the joint inquiry into state-sponsored terrorism and explore the opportunities we have to bring others to justice.”

It is understood a number of potential witnesses have been identified. Negotiations are taking place to insure they are interviewed.

Hopes are high that vital evidence needed to convict those who acted along with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi will be uncovered.

One target is Lamin Khalifa Fhimah, who stood trial with Megrahi but was acquitted.

Mulholland has already set up a Lockerbie inquiry unit aimed at uncovering new evidence against Fhimah, 55.

The move came after Holyrood scrapped the double-jeopardy law which prevented people being tried twice for the same crime. (...)

Fhimah recently backed the Libyan rebels as the Gaddafi regime fell.

It was thought to be a desperate bid to persuade them not to hand him over for a re-trial.

Former justice minister Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who claims to have evidence of Gaddafi’s involvement in Lockerbie, is a prominent figure in the new Libyan regime.

Scottish police have also questioned former foreign minister Moussa Koussa, who defected from the Gaddafi regime and is said to hold key information about the 1988 attack.

Other suspects include Gaddafi’s brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, who headed Libya’s intelligence services, and Ibrahim Nayili, Libya’s former head of airline security.

[A report (behind the paywall) in today's edition of The Times contains the following paragraph:]

The US authorities were furious when Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, allowed al-Megrahi to be released on compassionate grounds more than two years ago, but, in a sign that relations are improving, the Lord Advocate has been working with the FBI in recent weeks on a detailed plan to find others who were involved in the attack.

[More public relations puffery from the Crown Office. There is not the slightest sign that the Crown Office or the FBI are pursuing the copious evidence that exonerates Abdelbaset Megrahi. On this of all days, the relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster deserve better.]

‘These are my last words: I am innocent’

[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today's Scottish edition of The Times. The article, under the byline of Marcello Mega and the paper's Scotland editor Magnus Linklater, gives an account of a very recent visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi by George Thomson (who presented the Aljazeera documentary on the Lockerbie case broadcast in June 2011). The report reads in part:]

The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has given what he says is his last interview, using it to protest his innocence.

Speaking from his sick bed in Tripoli, Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, insisted that he was not involved in the attack on Pan Am 103 in December 1988 that killed 270 people. He also accused a key witness, whose evidence helped to convict him, of lying in court.

The interview was published as relatives of the American and Scottish victims gathered yesterday to mark the 23rd anniversary of the atrocity. At the Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia, Frank Mulholland, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, stood alongside US officials, including Eric Holder, the US Attorney-General, and Robert Mueller, the director of the FBI, to lay a wreath at the Lockerbie cairn.

They were joined by Ali Aujali, the Libyan ambassador to the United States, a mark of the new relationship between Tripoli and the West, and also a signal that new evidence may be produced in the search for the original instigators of the Pan Am bombing. (...)

A friend, George Thomson, who conducted the interview on Saturday, described him as ravaged by the cancer and very weak. “For any doubters who may think he is not ill, you only have to look at the man and how wasted he is to see he has not got long in this life,” said Mr Thomson on his return.

However, al-Megrahi still had enough strength to deliver a personal challenge to the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, whose identification was instrumental in securing his conviction. Clothes from Mr Gauci’s shop were found, along with a tiny fragment of the timing device that triggered the bomb, in a briefcase among the wreckage of the plane.

Asked by Mr Thomson, a former police officer who was part of his defence team, what he would say to Mr Gauci if he met him again, al-Megrahi said: “If I had the chance to see him, I would tell him that I never ever in my entire life bought clothes from his shop, I never bought clothes from him. He dealt with me very wrongly, I have never seen him in my life before he came to the court. I am facing my death and I swear by my God, which is my God and Gauci’s God, I swear with him I have never been in that shop or buy any clothing from Gauci. He has to believe this because we are all together when we die.”

It is not suggested that the claims against Mr Gauci have any basis in fact. [RB: Well done, Magnus Linklater! The Times's lawyers will be proud of you!]

Mr Thomson filmed the 20-minute interview as part of a documentary about Lockerbie to be broadcast in February. The Libyan revealed that he has co-operated in writing a book with an investigative journalist, John Ashton, that will contain “dramatic” new evidence about his case.

Scottish prosecutors remain convinced that the evidence on which he was convicted is substantial, but al-Megrahi said: “I want people to read the book and use their brain, not hearts, and make judgment. Information is not from me, not from lawyers, not from the media, but experts who deal with criminal law and science, and they will be surprised when they read it. It will clear my name.”

Al-Megrahi is convinced that US agencies were determined to secure a conviction. “I am facing my death any time, and I don’t want to accuse anyone, or any country. But the Americans led the way,” he said.

He also revealed that he had been paid a visit a few days earlier by Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the atrocity, and who has long campaigned to clear his name. He said that he had confided in Dr Swire the details of new discoveries about the timing fragment made by investigators still working on his behalf.

He claimed that police were aware that there was another witness to the purchase of clothing in the Maltese shop, who might have helped to clear his name — Mr Gauci’s brother, Paul. It has always been believed that Mr Gauci was the only witness who could identify the buyer of the clothes.

“The commission met with Gauci. At the end of the statement they said he was nervous. He told them that when the man who bought the clothes left the shop, his brother Paul came to the shop, and took the parcels from the man and took them to the taxi he was taking. This information has never been raised before. There is an opportunity to have another physical witness who could have identified the man, yet they kept the brother out of it.”

Al-Megrahi ended the interview by saying he had a message for the international community, especially the people of Scotland and the UK: “I am about to die and I’d ask now to be left in peace to die with my family, and they be left in peace by the media as well. I will not be giving any more interviews, and no more cameras will be allowed into my home ... I am an innocent man, and the book will clear my name.”

[A longer and more personal article by Marcello Mega about George Thomson's visit to Megrahi appears in today's Scottish edition of The Sun. A further article appears in the Daily Mail. A Maltese perspective is to be found in this article in Malta Today; and a Libyan perspective in this article in The Tripoli Post.]

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to 'show his innocence' in autobiography

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

Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, is writing his autobiography to “proclaim his innocence” by disclosing new information behind Britain’s deadliest terrorist attack, The Times has learnt.

Abdurrhman Swessi, Colonel Gaddafi’s official envoy to Scotland, disclosed yesterday that al-Megrahi was working on a book that would detail his life behind bars and reveal all he knows about the bombing in 1988 of Pan Am Flight 103, which killed 270 people.

The freed bomber’s lawyers had collected evidence for an appeal against his conviction that he dropped last week as a necessary condition to qualify for release on compassionate grounds. The book is expected to be used as al-Megrahi’s platform to argue that he was framed for the crime.

“He’ll be writing a book to proclaim his innocence,” Mr Swessi said from Tripoli during an interview conducted in Arabic. This comes after al-Megrahi said in an interview with The Times last week that he would produce new evidence to the “British and Scottish communities ... and ask them to be the jury”.

Mr Swessi, who was made Libya’s Consul-General in Glasgow to represent the convicted bomber’s interests, emphasised that al-Megrahi would write the book without assistance or intrusion from the Libyan Government.

The only English word used by the envoy during the ten-minute telephone interview was “scapegoat”, a reference to al-Megrahi, whose supporters claim that he was singled out by the West as part of an elaborate international conspiracy. (...)

Asked if he would help al-Megrahi to write the book, Mr Swessi — the closest official to the case, whose role was set up with the intention of lobbying the Scottish government for the bomber’s release — said: “He’s been making notes and will not require any assistance.” (...)

Robert Mueller, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who led the US legal investigation into the Lockerbie massacre, accused the Scottish government of emboldening terrorists by freeing al-Megrahi, the only person to be convicted of the bombing.

Mr Swessi said: “It’s all political talk and it’s meaningless. He deserved to be released because he is innocent, of course. He did not commit the crime. His innocence is well known and the Scottish government knows that very well.”

Mr Swessi insisted that Downing Street had nothing to do with the release. “It was the Scottish who made and delivered on their decision and that’s that,” he said.

“The issue was in the hands of the Scottish government and had nothing to do with anyone else.”

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.