Tuesday 29 April 2008

Spielberg to direct Lockerbie bombing movie

Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer has a lengthy article under this headline on OhMyMews International. He gives details of the project and of the views of Juval Aviv, on whose book (and Interfor Report) the film is to be based.

Monday 28 April 2008

Limits on justice

This is the heading over a letter in today's issue of The Scotsman from Iain McKie (father of Shirley). In it he criticises the decision of the Lord Advocate to seek a hearing before a bench of five judges in an attempt to limit Abdelbaset Megrahi's grounds of appeal to those approved by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. A bench of three judges in an earlier case held that if the SCCRC referred a case back to the Appeal Court, the grounds of appeal submitted by the appellant need not be confined to the grounds upheld by the Commission. It is this precedent that the Lord Advocate is now seeking to have overruled.

Tuesday 22 April 2008

Lord Macfadyen

Lord Macfadyen, one of the five judges on the bench during the first Lockerbie appeal in 2002, died last week at the age of 62. He will be much missed: he was a good judge and a genuinely nice person.

In an obituary in today’s issue of The Herald, it is said that “His reputation on the bench was enhanced by the Lockerbie appeal of 2002.” This is quite simply not so: none of the Appeal Court judges enhanced his reputation by his participation in the Lockerbie appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal on the technical legal ground that Megrahi’s then legal team had submitted grounds of appeal that were incompetent and had not asked the court to address the correct issues (Was there enough evidence in law to convict him? Was the verdict of guilty one that, on the evidence, no reasonable tribunal could have reached?). In the course of the appeal hearing, a number of the judges, particularly Lords Kirkwood and Osborne, exposed the weaknesses in the Crown’s case against Megrahi at the trial. But, at the end of the day, the court held that it could adjudicate only on the (wrong and misconceived) issues raised by his lawyers. See “Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result” section headed “The Appeal”.

The court’s decision, in my view, was a weak one. The final court of appeal in criminal matters in Scotland should decide cases on their substantive merits, not on technicalities or on the performance of the appellant’s legal representatives. None of the judges who concurred in this approach to the Lockerbie appeal enhanced his reputation.

Wednesday 16 April 2008

Abu Talb

The website of the International Herald Tribune reports that the life sentence for terrorist offences being served in Sweden by Abu Talb, who was the subject of a special defence of incrimination lodged by the accused at the Lockerbie trial (ie a claim that he, not the accused, was the true perpetrator) has been reduced to one of thirty years. The article begins:

"A Swedish court ruled Wednesday that an Egyptian-born Palestinian found guilty of terror attacks against U.S. and Jewish targets in the 1980s can have his life sentence turned into a 30-year prison term.

"The decision means Mohammed Abu Talb could be released in two years because he started serving his term in 1990 and prisoners in Sweden are normally released after having served two-thirds of their sentences.

"Abu Talb was sentenced to life in prison for a Synagogue bombing and an attack against a U.S. airline office in Denmark that killed one person and left several injured in 1985.

"He was also found guilty of involvement in the bombing of an Israeli airline office in the Netherlands.

"Abu Talb, who came to Sweden in 1983, was an early suspect in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people. But prosecutors abandoned the theory that Palestinians were responsible and turned their attention to Libya.

"He later testified in the trial in that case."

The full story can be read here.

Saturday 12 April 2008

Where are they now?

As far as I can see from a trawl of the internet and the blogosphere, there were no developments of any significance regarding Lockerbie during my trip to Namibia.

However, it has been reported that Megrahi's junior counsel at the Zeist trial, John Beckett, has been appointed a sheriff (a judge in Scotland's lower court system). Beckett became a QC in 2005 after the trial, and served briefly as Solicitor General for Scotland (deputy to the Lord Advocate, the chief Scottish Government law officer and head of the prosecution system) in 2006 to 2007. See http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2008/04/10100308

As far as the other lawyers involved in the trial are concerned, most remain in practice but two of the prosecutors, Alastair Campbell QC and Alan Turnbull QC, have become judges of the Scottish supreme courts (the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary); Megrahi's solicitor, Alistair Duff, has become a sheriff; and Richard Keen QC, the senior counsel for the acquitted co-accused, Lamin Fhimah, has been elected Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (leader of the Scottish Bar). The then Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd QC (later Lord Boyd of Duncansby) has taken the highly unusual step of resigning from the Faculty of Advocates and becoming a solicitor. He is now a partner in a large Edinburgh law firm.

The three judges who presided at the trial, Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and MacLean, have all now retired from the bench.

Monday 7 April 2008

Hiatus

I am off to Namibia for a few days. It is unlikely that there will be any further posts on this blog before Friday, 11 April.

Sunday 6 April 2008

The Iranian connection ... continued

On 10 March 2008 on this blog I referred to an article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer regarding the claim by the Iranian intelligence operative, Abolghasem Mesbahi, that Iran alone was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing. "Mesbahi" was always known to be a pseudonym and, in a new article in OhMyNews International, Dr De Braeckeleer identifies him as Abdul Hasan Mephahi, explores his role in the Iran-Contra affair and considers the possible implications of these revelations for those seeking the truth about Lockerbie. Dr De Braeckeleer's article can be read here.

Friday 4 April 2008

US wants Lockerbie bomber to stay

The BBC Scotland news website has an article today with the above headline. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Volker is quoted as saying that the agreement that led to the Lockerbie trial provided that, if convicted, the accused should serve their sentences in Scotland. The United States expected this agreement to be adhered to, notwithstanding any prisoner transfer agreement that may have been entered into by the UK Government and Libya. The full article can be read here.

And here is the text of a press release issued today by the Scottish National Party (the party which forms the Scottish -- as distinct from the UK -- Government):

'The US state department has said it is standing by an international agreement requiring the Lockerbie bomber to serve his sentence in Scotland.

'Acting Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Volker told BBC Scotland he expected the original deal to be "followed through". The UK Government and Libya recently struck an agreement over prisoner transfers.

'It emerged in June 2007 that the UK Government had signed a memorandum of understanding with Libya covering prisoner exchanges.

'First Minister Alex Salmond claimed at the time that the deal could allow Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya and he protested about a lack of consultation.

'Reacting to news that the US wants the Lockerbie bomber to stay in Scotland, Mr Salmond said:

"Anybody connected and convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should serve their sentences under Scottish jurisdiction. It is certainly not right for anyone regardless of their motivation to attempt to compromise or interfere or undermine the independent processes of the Scottish judicial system and I won't allow that to happen.

"We will defend the integrity of the Scottish judicial system, and uphold the international agreements that had been previously made."

'Megrahi is serving life for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing. He was convicted in 2001 of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.'

Monday 31 March 2008

Libya's Lockerbie compensation proposal

There have recently been a series of press reports about a Libyan proposal to resolve outstanding compensation issues regarding the La Belle disco bombing and the destruction of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie and UTA 772 over Niger. Here, reproduced from Mathaba.Net, is Patrick Haseldine's perceptive commentary:

'It is hardly surprising that details have not been revealed about the 'comprehensive settlement agreement' which Libya has proposed to resolve the question of compensation for the terrorist bombings of Berlin's La Belle discotheque in April 1986, Pan Am Flight 103 at Lockerbie in December 1988 and UTA Flight 772 over Niger, West Africa, in September 1989.

Libya has never admitted responsibility for the La Belle attack. Nonetheless, in August 2004, the Gaddafi International Foundation for Charity Associations (GIFCA) agreed with lawyers representing the German victims a final compensation figure of $35 million. US victims were presumably excluded from this agreement because of the USAF retaliatory air raid on Tripoli in June 1986, in which Muammar al-Gaddafi's adopted daughter Hannah was among dozens of casualties.

On August 15, 2003, Libya's UN ambassador, Ahmed Own, submitted a letter to the UN Security Council formally accepting "responsibility for the actions of its officials" in relation to both aircraft bombings. The Libyan government offered $2.7 billion compensation to relatives of the 270 Lockerbie bombing victims and proceeded to pay each family $8 million (from which legal fees of about $2.5 million were deducted). As a result, the United Nations cancelled the sanctions that had been suspended four years earlier, and US trade sanctions were lifted. A further $2 million would have gone to each family had the US State Department removed Libya from its list of states regarded as supporting international terrorism, but as this did not happen before the deadline set by Libya, the Libyan Central Bank withdrew the remaining $540 million in April 2005 from the escrow account in Switzerland through which the earlier $2.16 billion compensation for the victims' families had been paid. A civil action against Libya continues on behalf of Pan Am, which went bankrupt partly as a result of the Lockerbie attack. The airline is seeking $4.5 billion for the loss of the aircraft and the effect on the airline's business.

In January 2004, the Libyan leader's son Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi signed an agreement on behalf of GIFCA with French relatives' group "Les familles du DC-10 d'UTA en colère" offering a compensation payment of $170 million, or $1 million for each of the 170 UTA victims. By May 2007, it was reported that 95% of this compensation money had been distributed. However, the families of the seven American victims refused to accept their $1 million awards and are pursuing the Libyan government through a federal court in Washington. On September 19, 2006, the court was asked to rule that the Libyan government and six of its agents were guilty of the September 19, 1989 destruction of UTA Flight 772. Damages of more than $2 billion were claimed for the loss of life and the destruction of the DC-10 jet. In April 2007, D.C. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy found Libya directly responsible for the bombing and presided over a three day bench trial from August 13 to August 15, 2007. On January 15, 2008 Judge Kennedy issued an order awarding $6 billion in damages to the families and owners of the airliner. Libya has appealed this decision.

There are, however, strong reasons for believing that Libya was "fitted up" for these two aircraft bombings. According to French investigative journalist, Pierre PĂ©an, the FBI conspired to incriminate Libya for the sabotage of both Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772. PĂ©an wrote an article published in 'Le Monde Diplomatique' in March 2001, just after the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial had ended with the conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi on the strength of just one piece of hard evidence: a tiny fragment of a timing device manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo.

Two years earlier, six Libyans were tried 'in absentia' and convicted in 1999 by a Paris court for the UTA Flight 772 bombing. PĂ©an claimed there was something wrong:

"It is striking to witness the similarity of the discoveries, by the FBI, of the scientific proof of the two aircraft that were sabotaged: the Pan Am Boeing 747 and the UTA DC-10. Among the thousands or rather tens of thousands of pieces of debris collected near the crash sites, just one PCB fragment was found in each case, which carried enough information to allow its identification: Mebo for the Boeing 747 and "TY" (from Taiwan) for the DC-10."

PĂ©an went on to accuse judge Jean-Louis Bruguière of ignoring the results of an analysis by Claude Colisti of the Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire (DCPJ) – one of the world's foremost explosives experts – that the "TY" timer fragment had no trace of explosives residue, and could not therefore have been connected to the bomb that destroyed UTA Flight 772. Furthermore, neither a forensic inquiry by the Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire (DST) nor an examination by the scientific laboratory of the PrĂ©fecture de Police (PP) could make any connection between the timer fragment and the bomb. According to PĂ©an, judge Bruguière had therefore taken at face value the word of an FBI political operative (Thomas Thurman), who had been discredited in 1997 by the US Inspector-General, Michael Bromwich, and told never again to appear in court as an expert witness, rather than accept the findings of French forensic experts. It was revealed at the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial that the British scientist, Dr Thomas Hayes, had also failed to test the Mebo timer fragment for explosives residue. Such reckless disregard for the integrity of forensic evidence is likely to have the most profound effects upon the Scottish judicial process in relation to Megrahi's second appeal against conviction at the Edinburgh Appeal Court in 2008.

There have been suggestions that, if Megrahi's appeal is successful and his conviction is overturned, Libya could seek to recover the compensation that has already been paid. Interviewed by French newspaper 'Le Figaro' on December 7, 2007, Saif al-Gaddafi insisted that the seven Libyans convicted for the Pan Am Flight 103 and the UTA Flight 772 bombings "are innocent". When asked if Libya would therefore seek reimbursement of the compensation paid to the families of the victims ($2.33 billion in total), Saif al-Gaddafi replied: "I don't know".

Thus, the proposed 'comprehensive settlement agreement' - that Libyan officials discussed in London last week with David Welch of the US State Department - is more likely to involve a refund of compensation to Libya, rather than any further payments by Libya.'

Here is an article on the compensation issue from The Wall Street Journal of 2 April 2008.

Sunday 30 March 2008

Arab Ministerial Council Demands Release of Documents in the Libyan Citizen Case

The following is from Mathaba News Network on 29 March:

"The Council of Arab Foreign Ministers has demanded that all documents requested by the defence team in the trial of the Libyan political hostage Abd al Basset al Megrahi to be released to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. [Note by RB: The documents in question were, in fact, released to the SCCRC, which regarded them as of such importance that their non-disclosure at the trial may have given rise to a miscarriage of justice. It is disclosure of the documents to Megrahi's legal team and to the court for the purpose of the appeal that is currently at issue.]

The failure to release the documents will lead to the miscarriage of justice and an impediment to his vindication, the Council said in a meeting in Damascus today.

The Council entrusted the Arab League Secretary General Amr Mussa with the follow up of this decision and to report back to the next Arab summit.

It considered the Libyan citizen Abd al Basset al Megrahi a hostage by all international norms and laws.

The Council endorsed a decision to tackle the damage resulting from the Lockerbie case.

It reconfirmed the legitimate right of Libya to reparations for the human and material losses incurred by the unjust sanctions that had been imposed on it."

See http://mathaba.net/news/?x=587142

The English language website of the Libyan Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation has a brief report of the same story, which can be read here.

The Iranian connection

In an article entitled “The truth behind Lockerbie” on the website of Al-Arabiya News Channel (reproduced from the issue of Al-Ahram Weekly for 20 – 26 March) Issaka SouarĂ© reviews the problems about the evidence used to convict Abdelbaset Megrahi in the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist, and highlights retired CIA officer Robert Baer’s view that the true responsibility for the destruction of Pan Am 103 lay with Iran. See
http://www.alarabiya.net/views/2008/03/27/47511.html

Also focusing on Iranian responsibility is the latest article, entitled “Lockerbie: the man who was not there”, by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer which appeared on OhMyNews International on 29 March. The author retells the story of the claim by Abolghasem Mesbahi, a high-ranking Iranian intelligence agent, that Iran alone was responsible for the destruction of the aircraft. Dr De Braeckeleer continues his debate with Richard A Marquise, the retired FBI Special Agent who headed that body’s Lockerbie investigation. The full text of this lengthy and informative article can be read here.

Monday 24 March 2008

Dr Swire's article in The Scotsman

I am grateful to Dr Jim Swire for sending me the full text of the article that appeared in The Scotsman on 14 March (see post on that date on this blog). It reads as follows (the version in The Scotsman was slightly edited):

"The issues here are tied into the development of the Scottish devolution process, they involve a great deal more than the sanctity of Mr Megrahi's (described by your headline as 'the Lockerbie bomber') appeal process.

"As the Lockerbie case progressed, the prosecution found itself in possession in 1996 of material that Mr Miliband now claims cannot be divilged to the defence. This occurred originally, it is said, because at the time, Scotland's Lord Advocate was ex officio a member of the UK government.

"Mr Miliband has, as your article says, now taken out Public Interest Immunity certificates(PIIs) to 'protect' the documents from release to either the defence or the public.

"Since a basic tenet of Scottish criminal law is 'equality of arms' between the defence and prosecution in a criminal case, it is hard to see how anyone can contend in the present circumstances that the 2nd appeal could be considered fair. Specially since the SCCRC seemed to be including the contents of these documents (which they had also been shown) in their reasons for referring the case back.

"PII certificates, carry as their justification and title, the interests of 'the public'. What may be at stake here, unless a solution is found in the High Court, is the freedom of the Scottish criminal system to be, and to be seen to be, independent of political control from Whitehall.

"If that absolute independance of Scottish law were not to be decisively established, and soon, it would be a black day indeed for the scottish public, which presumably Mr Miliband also claims to serve.

"The citizen needs to have faith in the independence and fairness of his judicial system, which he might need to use to protect himself from injustice imposed by his own government, let alone that in Westminster: selective disclosure to the prosecution in so grave a criminal case cannot be right."

And again ...

I am off tomorrow (Tuesday 25th) to Oudtshoorn for the Klein Karoo Nasionale Kunstefees, the Afrikaner equivalent of the Edinburgh Festival. There will therefore be no postings on this blog before Sunday, 30 March. Fortunately, as far as a trawl of the internet and the blogosphere can show, there is little of interest happening (at least in public) on the Lockerbie front.

Thursday 20 March 2008

Service interruption

Because I am on duty at Gannaga Lodge over the Easter weekend (barman, porter, dishwasher, assistant chef) I shall not be in a position to post on this blog until Monday, 24 March at the earliest.

Wednesday 19 March 2008

American lawyer sues firm over Lockerbie work

Douglas Rosenthal, an American attorney, is suing his former firm, Sonnenschein, Nash and Rosenthal for $8.5m in the Washington DC Superior Court for its alleged failure properly to recognise, and to compensate him for, his work in representing relatives of passengers killed in the destruction of Pan Am 103. An account of the first week of the court proceedings can be read here.