[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Malta is preparing to launch an investigation into the evidence one of the key trial witnesses who helped convict Abdelbasset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie bombing.
Government officials want to look at the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified the Libyan as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am Flight 103.
Mr Gauci ran a clothes shop, in [Sliema], Malta in 1988, and claimed Megrahi purchased an incriminating piece of clothing found among the debris of the aircraft.
But he has long been dogged by accusations that he concocted the story to receive a multi-million payout from the US.
Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds in August, is running an internet campaign to prove his innocence.
The former Libyan secret agent has accused America of "buying evidence" by paying Mr Gauci $2 million (£1.2m) under the Rewards for Justice programme.
The international outcry over Megrahi's release has finally persuaded the Maltese authorities to consider an inquiry.
A Maltese legal official told The Daily Telegraph: "Tony Gauci is an area where we have to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this.
"There was never enough proof, to be frank, on the circumstances of his evidence and there is pressure coming from many quarters on Malta to move to resolve the issue." (...)
A review of Megrahi's conviction by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007 also revealed that Mr Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police but had made a series of "contradictory" statements.
Critics claim he manufactured his testimony after prompting by American agents who already had Megrahi in their sights and were desperate to get a conviction.
Relatives of the Scottish victims of the bombing have also voiced doubts about Megrahi's conviction. (...)
Campaigners for an investigation into the collection of evidence and subsequent trial of Megrahi before a Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands said Mr Gauci was peripheral to efforts to find justice.
"I don't think he's of much use," said Robert Black, a Scottish QC who campaigns on Lockerbie. "He says what he thinks people want him to say." [RB: The reporter has completely misunderstood what I was saying. The trial judges' assessment of Gauci as credible and reliable was absolutely crucial to their conviction of Megrahi. If it can be demonstrated that Gauci was neither credible nor reliable, the foundation of that conviction completely disappears.]
Mr Black has co-operated with Dr Jim Swire, who's daughter Flora was one of 11 people who died in the village when Flight 103 exploded above Lockerbie in 1988 killing 270.
Both men are signatories to a letter to the United Nations General Assembly calling for an international inquiry into the tragedy.
"Malta is well placed to ask for this because its airport was stigmatised by the verdict," Mr Black said. "Malta has proved it could not be involved. It was in fact one of the very few places in the world that carried out physical reconciliation by baggage handlers at that time."
Dr Swire has threatened the government with legal action to overturn the Lockerbie verdict.
Mr Gauci now refuses to respond to questions about his controversial testimony. His last known residence was a well-guarded house shared with his brother in the Maltese suburb.
[What follows is from a report on the website of the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
Malta has denied reports in the Daily Telegraph that it was to investigate the evidence of one of the key witnesses who helped convict the Lockerbie bomber.
According to the newspaper, the Maltese government wants to examine the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am flight 103. (...)
The Telegraph quoted a Maltese legal official as saying: "Tony Gauci is an area we want to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this."
But Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told timesofmalta.com the report was untrue.
[The MaltaMedia website report on the issue contains the following:]
The Government has categorically denied that any Government official said that the Maltese Government is preparing to look into the testimony that Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the said trial. The Maltese Government is not prepared to do any such thing.
Since 1988 successive Maltese Governments have always maintained that the bomb which downed the Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced. The Maltese Government hopes that this statement will put an end to this kind of speculation once and for all.
Saturday 31 October 2009
Friday 30 October 2009
Lockerbie extradition suggestion ‘was utter nonsense’
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The leading expert on the Lockerbie trial has accused the US ambassador to Britain of talking “utter nonsense” by saying America could have sought extradition of those involved in the bombing.
Robert Black, the professor who was instrumental in enabling the Lockerbie trial to be held at Camp Zeist in Holland, ridiculed the whole idea of extradition.
US Ambassador Louis B Susman said the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi strained relations between the US and Scotland but caused no lasting damage.
He told BBC Scotland: “We never anticipated his release. I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on.”
He added: “Good friends disagree. I compare it sometimes to a marriage.”
Mr Susman was speaking during his first official visit to Scotland. Mr Salmond hosted a reception where the ambassador launched an exchange programme to strengthen links between the countries.
Professor Black said: “If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah, but there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possi-bility that extradition would be effected voluntarily.”
If the ambassador was referring to the period after Megrahi’s conviction, his comment was “utter nonsense” because none of the diplomacy would have worked.
[The last sentence does not accurately reflect what I said. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, if extradition had been sought after Mr Megrahi was convicted the application would have been summarily dismissed by the Scottish courts because there was no warrant for it in the legislation governing extradition.
The report on the issue in The Times contains the following:
'Mr Susman said in a television interview: “We never anticipated his release. If we had thought he would be released we would have asked for extradition early on.” (...)
'However, Mr Susman’s view was challenged last night by Scottish legal experts and politicians who pointed out that although many of the Lockerbie victims were American citizens, the crime had taken place over Scottish soil, and therefore al-Megrahi could not have stood trial in the US. [RB: The aircraft was registered in the United States and 189 of those who died were US citizens. There was accordingly never any legal doubt that the accused could have been tried in the United States. The problem was that there was no US-Libya extradition treaty and never the remotest chance that the suspects would be handed over voluntarily into US hands.]
'Given the poor relations between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the US Government at the time, there was never any chance, they said, that the Libyans would have allowed al-Megrahi to be tried in the US. They also pointed out that the international agreement that allowed al-Megrahi’s trial to go ahead in the Netherlands stipulated that any sentence handed down by the Scottish court would be served in Scotland.
'However, they added that Mr Susman’s comments may reflect the continuing anger felt in Washington and among victims’ relatives who say that they were repeatedly promised by the British Government that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland.
'Scottish opposition parties that opposed the release criticised Mr Susman’s views. The Scottish Tories said that while the decision to release al-Megrahi was “profoundly wrong”, it was a matter for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats agreed, saying: “Given that one of the fundamental principles of Scots law is that somebody cannot be tried for the same crime twice, it’s difficult to see what case the US Government could have put for extradition.”'
The report in The Scotsman contains the following:
'"We never anticipated his release," said Mr Susman. "I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on." (...)
'But Professor Robert Black, who was one of the architects of the Camp Zeist agreement which saw Megrahi handed over by the Libyans for trial in 2000, described the comments as "utter rubbish".
'"The Americans know that Libya would never have handed over Mr Megrahi for trial in America," he said. (...)
'Susan Cohen, an American whose daughter was killed in the attack, said: "I always thought we should have gone for extradition. Events proved me right."'
RB: After the announcement in Scotland and in the United States in November 1991 that charges had been brought against Megrahi and Fhimah, both countries sought the extradition of the suspects through diplomatic channels. The US did, in Susan Cohen's words, "go for extradition". These attempts, however, failed. That was precisely the reason for the moves, in which I played a part, to set up a Scottish non-jury court in the Netherlands which might induce the suspects to surrender voluntarily for trial.]
The leading expert on the Lockerbie trial has accused the US ambassador to Britain of talking “utter nonsense” by saying America could have sought extradition of those involved in the bombing.
Robert Black, the professor who was instrumental in enabling the Lockerbie trial to be held at Camp Zeist in Holland, ridiculed the whole idea of extradition.
US Ambassador Louis B Susman said the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi strained relations between the US and Scotland but caused no lasting damage.
He told BBC Scotland: “We never anticipated his release. I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on.”
He added: “Good friends disagree. I compare it sometimes to a marriage.”
Mr Susman was speaking during his first official visit to Scotland. Mr Salmond hosted a reception where the ambassador launched an exchange programme to strengthen links between the countries.
Professor Black said: “If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah, but there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possi-bility that extradition would be effected voluntarily.”
If the ambassador was referring to the period after Megrahi’s conviction, his comment was “utter nonsense” because none of the diplomacy would have worked.
[The last sentence does not accurately reflect what I said. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, if extradition had been sought after Mr Megrahi was convicted the application would have been summarily dismissed by the Scottish courts because there was no warrant for it in the legislation governing extradition.
The report on the issue in The Times contains the following:
'Mr Susman said in a television interview: “We never anticipated his release. If we had thought he would be released we would have asked for extradition early on.” (...)
'However, Mr Susman’s view was challenged last night by Scottish legal experts and politicians who pointed out that although many of the Lockerbie victims were American citizens, the crime had taken place over Scottish soil, and therefore al-Megrahi could not have stood trial in the US. [RB: The aircraft was registered in the United States and 189 of those who died were US citizens. There was accordingly never any legal doubt that the accused could have been tried in the United States. The problem was that there was no US-Libya extradition treaty and never the remotest chance that the suspects would be handed over voluntarily into US hands.]
'Given the poor relations between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the US Government at the time, there was never any chance, they said, that the Libyans would have allowed al-Megrahi to be tried in the US. They also pointed out that the international agreement that allowed al-Megrahi’s trial to go ahead in the Netherlands stipulated that any sentence handed down by the Scottish court would be served in Scotland.
'However, they added that Mr Susman’s comments may reflect the continuing anger felt in Washington and among victims’ relatives who say that they were repeatedly promised by the British Government that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland.
'Scottish opposition parties that opposed the release criticised Mr Susman’s views. The Scottish Tories said that while the decision to release al-Megrahi was “profoundly wrong”, it was a matter for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats agreed, saying: “Given that one of the fundamental principles of Scots law is that somebody cannot be tried for the same crime twice, it’s difficult to see what case the US Government could have put for extradition.”'
The report in The Scotsman contains the following:
'"We never anticipated his release," said Mr Susman. "I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on." (...)
'But Professor Robert Black, who was one of the architects of the Camp Zeist agreement which saw Megrahi handed over by the Libyans for trial in 2000, described the comments as "utter rubbish".
'"The Americans know that Libya would never have handed over Mr Megrahi for trial in America," he said. (...)
'Susan Cohen, an American whose daughter was killed in the attack, said: "I always thought we should have gone for extradition. Events proved me right."'
RB: After the announcement in Scotland and in the United States in November 1991 that charges had been brought against Megrahi and Fhimah, both countries sought the extradition of the suspects through diplomatic channels. The US did, in Susan Cohen's words, "go for extradition". These attempts, however, failed. That was precisely the reason for the moves, in which I played a part, to set up a Scottish non-jury court in the Netherlands which might induce the suspects to surrender voluntarily for trial.]
Copping-out on Lockerbie
Government Ministers in London and Edinburgh are playing a sordid game of pass the buck over the Lockerbie disaster.
Now that Libyan bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has been sent home, relatives of the 270 people killed in the atrocity want a public inquiry.
In a fair imitation of Pontius Pilate, Foreign Secretary David Miliband washes his hands of responsibility, saying such an investigation "should be a matter for the Scots".
Alex Salmond's SNP Government claims an international inquiry would go "well beyond our restricted remit and responsibilities", and should be carried out by "those with the required powers" - ie, the UK Government.
With both London and Edinburgh evading the issue, the poor cops in Dumfries have been ordered to reopen the worst case of terrorist murder in British history 21 years after the event.
This police investigation looks like a smokescreen behind which politicians in both capitals can retire. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, suspects as much. "If it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected, then I would be livid," he says. Prepare to get cross, Jim.
[The above is the text of an article by Paul Routledge in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. Hits the nail on the head, I think.]
Now that Libyan bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has been sent home, relatives of the 270 people killed in the atrocity want a public inquiry.
In a fair imitation of Pontius Pilate, Foreign Secretary David Miliband washes his hands of responsibility, saying such an investigation "should be a matter for the Scots".
Alex Salmond's SNP Government claims an international inquiry would go "well beyond our restricted remit and responsibilities", and should be carried out by "those with the required powers" - ie, the UK Government.
With both London and Edinburgh evading the issue, the poor cops in Dumfries have been ordered to reopen the worst case of terrorist murder in British history 21 years after the event.
This police investigation looks like a smokescreen behind which politicians in both capitals can retire. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, suspects as much. "If it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected, then I would be livid," he says. Prepare to get cross, Jim.
[The above is the text of an article by Paul Routledge in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. Hits the nail on the head, I think.]
Thursday 29 October 2009
Lockerbie: US will not divorce UK
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The US Ambassador to the UK has stressed that good relations with Scotland will survive the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
But during his first official visit to Scotland Louis Susman also highlighted America's disappointment.
Mr Susman said the relationship with the UK was like a marriage but also strong enough to thrive. (...)
The ambassador is known to be a close confidant of the President and said America had fully expected the Lockerbie bomber to remain in prison in Scotland.
He told BBC Scotland that America might have sought to have al Megrahi extradited at an early stage, if they had thought that the Libyan would end up being released.
He said: "We never anticipated his release, I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
He continued: "Good friends disagree, I compare it sometimes to a marriage, you have a little fight, you are a little mad but you don't get divorced."
[ "... I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah. But there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possibility that extradition would be effected voluntarily. That, indeed, was the very reason why the neutral venue scheme was thought up and recommended by the US and the UK jointly to the United Nations Security Council, which then adopted it unanimously.
If the ambassador is talking about the period after Mr Megrahi's conviction at Zeist, his comment is arrant nonsense. The United States Government was well aware that repatriation was a real possibility: indeed, two US Cabinet officers - the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of State - made representations to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary while he was pondering his decision. If, at that stage, (or any other stage while Mr Megrahi was in Scottish custody as a convicted prisoner) the United States had requested his extradition, the Scottish courts would have rejected the application as totally lacking in legal justification.]
The US Ambassador to the UK has stressed that good relations with Scotland will survive the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
But during his first official visit to Scotland Louis Susman also highlighted America's disappointment.
Mr Susman said the relationship with the UK was like a marriage but also strong enough to thrive. (...)
The ambassador is known to be a close confidant of the President and said America had fully expected the Lockerbie bomber to remain in prison in Scotland.
He told BBC Scotland that America might have sought to have al Megrahi extradited at an early stage, if they had thought that the Libyan would end up being released.
He said: "We never anticipated his release, I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
He continued: "Good friends disagree, I compare it sometimes to a marriage, you have a little fight, you are a little mad but you don't get divorced."
[ "... I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah. But there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possibility that extradition would be effected voluntarily. That, indeed, was the very reason why the neutral venue scheme was thought up and recommended by the US and the UK jointly to the United Nations Security Council, which then adopted it unanimously.
If the ambassador is talking about the period after Mr Megrahi's conviction at Zeist, his comment is arrant nonsense. The United States Government was well aware that repatriation was a real possibility: indeed, two US Cabinet officers - the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of State - made representations to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary while he was pondering his decision. If, at that stage, (or any other stage while Mr Megrahi was in Scottish custody as a convicted prisoner) the United States had requested his extradition, the Scottish courts would have rejected the application as totally lacking in legal justification.]
Police boss dismisses Lockerbie case claims
[This is the headline over a report in the Dumfries & Galloway Standard, one of the local newspapers circulating in Lockerbie. It reads in part:]
The region’s top cop has rubbished claims that a new investigation into the Lockerbie bombing will take place.
Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that there will only be a review of the evidence to see if any further lines of inquiry can be explored.
He stressed it was not a re-launch of the police investigation.
National newspaper reports at the weekend suggested that a fresh investigation would concentrate on identifying the accomplices of convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
However, Chief Constable Shearer said: “The case remains open and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary continues to work closely with the Crown Office. (...)
“Reports of the police investigation being re-launched are inaccurate.
“The work that is being undertaken is the latest in a series of reviews which have formed part of an investigative strategy in keeping with our determination to pursue every possible lead.
“We also take cognisance of the trial court’s acceptance of the Crown’s position that Mr al-Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan Intelligence Service and did not act alone.
“It has been reported that new lines of inquiry are being pursued by my officers.
“I am concerned that the work that is being carried out in conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service could be misunderstood.
“As is the case in all major police investigations that remain open, good practice dictates that the evidence is reviewed at regular intervals.
“Recent events in the case simply bring about an appropriate time to take stock of all of the evidence gathered to establish if any new investigative opportunities exist.
“It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the review in any further detail but I would like to emphasise this is not a re-launch of the police investigation.”
Local man John Gair has welcomed the review because he believes there was a lot of other people involved in the bombing.
“Other people were named at the time but Gaddafi wouldn’t release them. The one thing a review won’t sort out is whether Megrahi was involved. (...)
“I’ve spoken to various senior policemen involved with the case over the years who are convinced they got the right man; but there are others like Dr Jim Swire who believe Megrahi is innocent.
“There is a complete range of opinions from people in the town, but I would love to know what the answer is.”
[So now we have it from the horse's mouth: the minds of the police and the Crown Office are utterly closed, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
The region’s top cop has rubbished claims that a new investigation into the Lockerbie bombing will take place.
Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that there will only be a review of the evidence to see if any further lines of inquiry can be explored.
He stressed it was not a re-launch of the police investigation.
National newspaper reports at the weekend suggested that a fresh investigation would concentrate on identifying the accomplices of convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
However, Chief Constable Shearer said: “The case remains open and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary continues to work closely with the Crown Office. (...)
“Reports of the police investigation being re-launched are inaccurate.
“The work that is being undertaken is the latest in a series of reviews which have formed part of an investigative strategy in keeping with our determination to pursue every possible lead.
“We also take cognisance of the trial court’s acceptance of the Crown’s position that Mr al-Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan Intelligence Service and did not act alone.
“It has been reported that new lines of inquiry are being pursued by my officers.
“I am concerned that the work that is being carried out in conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service could be misunderstood.
“As is the case in all major police investigations that remain open, good practice dictates that the evidence is reviewed at regular intervals.
“Recent events in the case simply bring about an appropriate time to take stock of all of the evidence gathered to establish if any new investigative opportunities exist.
“It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the review in any further detail but I would like to emphasise this is not a re-launch of the police investigation.”
Local man John Gair has welcomed the review because he believes there was a lot of other people involved in the bombing.
“Other people were named at the time but Gaddafi wouldn’t release them. The one thing a review won’t sort out is whether Megrahi was involved. (...)
“I’ve spoken to various senior policemen involved with the case over the years who are convinced they got the right man; but there are others like Dr Jim Swire who believe Megrahi is innocent.
“There is a complete range of opinions from people in the town, but I would love to know what the answer is.”
[So now we have it from the horse's mouth: the minds of the police and the Crown Office are utterly closed, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Lockerbie and the Prime Minister
The BBC News website's report on today's Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons contains the following:
"1223 Tory Daniel Kawcznyski asks about a Lockerbie bombing inquiry. Mr Brown says it is up to the Scottish authorities to pursue any new leads."
The account of the exchange on The Scotsman's website can be read here.
What follows is correspondence between Dr Jim Swire and the Prime Minister.
Letter from Dr Swire
24th August 2009
Dear Prime Minister,
LOCKERBIE
I regret that I have not written to you previously about the Lockerbie disaster. Now I must approach you against the rather dire current events in Scotland.
I had the privilege of meeting Kenny MacAskill during discussions over what he should do. I admire him as a man of integrity who decided on the basis of what he believed was right, within the precepts of Scots law. I note that the Church of Scotland supported Megrahi's repatriation.
He knew he would draw the attention of the lynch mobs.
I believe that by taking an honourable course in conformity with established Scottish law practice (the 3 months to live precedent), he has gained for Scotland an opportunity to shed some of the opprobrium which will descend on her over the way the Lockerbie case has been handled, when the verdict is finally quashed.
What may not have been anticipated is the venom of the onslaught from the USA. The odious Libyan rejoicing must surely have been expected. For the public in both England and Scotland the arrogance with which the USA speaks is deeply resented.
In responding to the letter to MacAskill from Mueller of the FBI (writing from the Department of Justice) I have pointed out one way in which the much vaunted investigation was profoundly deficient. I refer to the break-in at Heathrow which remained concealed for 12 years until after the Megrahi verdict had been reached. This break-in must have been known to Lady Thatcher, since the Met. investigated it, yet the Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew about it. That claim demands further corroboration.
Frankly had that aspect of the case been known to the Zeist court, the trial would have been stopped, or never started in the first place. Unlike Heathrow, where all was documented, there was no evidence led of a security breach at the Malta airport.
This concealment does not implicate the USA, except in as much as one would expect their investigators also to have been aware of it, nor your party. Nor does it promote the purposes of the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed there are strong suggestions that the investigating Scottish police may have known of it and suppressed it. Exposing it would exonerate Libya (and Malta) and so certainly would strengthen the UK's position in Libya's mind and through the Arab world.
It implicates the Downing Street of the day (Lady Thatcher) who compounded her apparent knowledge of what really happened by her claims in 'the Downing Street years' published 2 years after the indictments were issued, where she claims that her support for the Reagan bombing of Tripoli/Bengazi left Gaddafi unable to mount serious terrorist outrages thereafter (Page 449).. Its exposure will be strongly opposed by those civil servants and intelligence people who know it to be true.
In urging you to promote a full inquiry, including the question of suppression of the Heathrow evidence, I hope that the proposal will be seen not as some sort of temptation by the devil, but a way whereby the truth may be approached, MacAskill's decision would be justified, the US forced to climb down, and perhaps most importantly of all, the UK, and Scotland in particular emerge with some credit after all.
With best wishes to you and your family,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Reply from the Prime Minister
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A2AA
23 October 2009
Dear Dr Swire
Thank you for your letter of 24 August.
First of all, I know that nothing I can say will assuage the loss that you and the other family members of the Lockerbie victims will still feel, but I assure you that you have my full sympathy in your loss.
You refer to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. As you say, that was a decision to be taken in the Scottish legal system, and I and my colleages were careful to respect the fact that this was Mr MacAskill’s responsibility. Like you however I deplore the unseemly way in which Mr Megrahi was received in Tripoli and I have made this clear publicly.
You seek a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case, to cover in particular certain evidence which you say was concealed from the investigation. I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pa Am flight 103. As you will recognise, that investigation and the subsequent prosecution was the responsibility of the Scottish Police and prosecutors. The evidence that was gathered was tested in court at the original trial in 2001 and on appeal in 2003. I understand that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow to which you refer made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not.
These are matters which the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland considered and upheld. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.
I recognise that this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope you understand why for the reasons I have set out. My thoughts, and those of the Government remain with you and the other families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
Yours sincerely
(signed) Gordon Brown
[It will be noted that the Prime Minister's reply is dated the same day as UK Families-Flight 103 handed in to 10 Downing Street the group's own letter requesting the institution of a full independent inquiry.]
"1223 Tory Daniel Kawcznyski asks about a Lockerbie bombing inquiry. Mr Brown says it is up to the Scottish authorities to pursue any new leads."
The account of the exchange on The Scotsman's website can be read here.
What follows is correspondence between Dr Jim Swire and the Prime Minister.
Letter from Dr Swire
24th August 2009
Dear Prime Minister,
LOCKERBIE
I regret that I have not written to you previously about the Lockerbie disaster. Now I must approach you against the rather dire current events in Scotland.
I had the privilege of meeting Kenny MacAskill during discussions over what he should do. I admire him as a man of integrity who decided on the basis of what he believed was right, within the precepts of Scots law. I note that the Church of Scotland supported Megrahi's repatriation.
He knew he would draw the attention of the lynch mobs.
I believe that by taking an honourable course in conformity with established Scottish law practice (the 3 months to live precedent), he has gained for Scotland an opportunity to shed some of the opprobrium which will descend on her over the way the Lockerbie case has been handled, when the verdict is finally quashed.
What may not have been anticipated is the venom of the onslaught from the USA. The odious Libyan rejoicing must surely have been expected. For the public in both England and Scotland the arrogance with which the USA speaks is deeply resented.
In responding to the letter to MacAskill from Mueller of the FBI (writing from the Department of Justice) I have pointed out one way in which the much vaunted investigation was profoundly deficient. I refer to the break-in at Heathrow which remained concealed for 12 years until after the Megrahi verdict had been reached. This break-in must have been known to Lady Thatcher, since the Met. investigated it, yet the Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew about it. That claim demands further corroboration.
Frankly had that aspect of the case been known to the Zeist court, the trial would have been stopped, or never started in the first place. Unlike Heathrow, where all was documented, there was no evidence led of a security breach at the Malta airport.
This concealment does not implicate the USA, except in as much as one would expect their investigators also to have been aware of it, nor your party. Nor does it promote the purposes of the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed there are strong suggestions that the investigating Scottish police may have known of it and suppressed it. Exposing it would exonerate Libya (and Malta) and so certainly would strengthen the UK's position in Libya's mind and through the Arab world.
It implicates the Downing Street of the day (Lady Thatcher) who compounded her apparent knowledge of what really happened by her claims in 'the Downing Street years' published 2 years after the indictments were issued, where she claims that her support for the Reagan bombing of Tripoli/Bengazi left Gaddafi unable to mount serious terrorist outrages thereafter (Page 449).. Its exposure will be strongly opposed by those civil servants and intelligence people who know it to be true.
In urging you to promote a full inquiry, including the question of suppression of the Heathrow evidence, I hope that the proposal will be seen not as some sort of temptation by the devil, but a way whereby the truth may be approached, MacAskill's decision would be justified, the US forced to climb down, and perhaps most importantly of all, the UK, and Scotland in particular emerge with some credit after all.
With best wishes to you and your family,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Reply from the Prime Minister
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A2AA
23 October 2009
Dear Dr Swire
Thank you for your letter of 24 August.
First of all, I know that nothing I can say will assuage the loss that you and the other family members of the Lockerbie victims will still feel, but I assure you that you have my full sympathy in your loss.
You refer to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. As you say, that was a decision to be taken in the Scottish legal system, and I and my colleages were careful to respect the fact that this was Mr MacAskill’s responsibility. Like you however I deplore the unseemly way in which Mr Megrahi was received in Tripoli and I have made this clear publicly.
You seek a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case, to cover in particular certain evidence which you say was concealed from the investigation. I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pa Am flight 103. As you will recognise, that investigation and the subsequent prosecution was the responsibility of the Scottish Police and prosecutors. The evidence that was gathered was tested in court at the original trial in 2001 and on appeal in 2003. I understand that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow to which you refer made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not.
These are matters which the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland considered and upheld. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.
I recognise that this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope you understand why for the reasons I have set out. My thoughts, and those of the Government remain with you and the other families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
Yours sincerely
(signed) Gordon Brown
[It will be noted that the Prime Minister's reply is dated the same day as UK Families-Flight 103 handed in to 10 Downing Street the group's own letter requesting the institution of a full independent inquiry.]
Reverend John Mosey to speak at Life After Lockerbie event
A minister who lost his 19-year-old daughter in the Lockerbie bombing is to speak in York about the positives he took out of her death.
The Reverend John Mosey, whose daughter, Helga, was on the Pan Am jumbo jet that was blown up over the Scottish town on December 21, 1988, will also take questions from members of the public during the Life After Lockerbie event at Foxwood Community Centre.
Mr Mosey, 69, told The Press he was devastated by his daughter’s death and it was an “incredibly difficult” time.
“It’s hard to explain in just a few words,” he said. “We have found amazing strength in our faith and that’s really what’s brought us through. We’ve seen great things come out of it.”
About two years ago, Mr Mosey telephoned convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to tell him he did not believe he was guilty of the atrocity. Mr Mosey told al-Megrahi that only he and God could know for sure. (...)
In about 1992, he set up a home for abused and abandoned children in a rural area of the Philippines. “We have 286 there, a day school and a nursery school,” he said. “I also have a children’s home in India where we have 32 girls who are destitute. Most of them are just girls off the street who have had no education and no healthcare, but they have a good home now and they do very well.” Mr Mosey, who lives near Kendal, in Cumbria, was invited to the city by Steve Redman, the pastor of the Ark Church, which meets at Foxwood Community Centre, in Bellhouse Way [York]. (...)
The event is happening on Sunday, November 8, at 7pm.
[From an article in The Press, a newspaper circulating in York.]
The Reverend John Mosey, whose daughter, Helga, was on the Pan Am jumbo jet that was blown up over the Scottish town on December 21, 1988, will also take questions from members of the public during the Life After Lockerbie event at Foxwood Community Centre.
Mr Mosey, 69, told The Press he was devastated by his daughter’s death and it was an “incredibly difficult” time.
“It’s hard to explain in just a few words,” he said. “We have found amazing strength in our faith and that’s really what’s brought us through. We’ve seen great things come out of it.”
About two years ago, Mr Mosey telephoned convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to tell him he did not believe he was guilty of the atrocity. Mr Mosey told al-Megrahi that only he and God could know for sure. (...)
In about 1992, he set up a home for abused and abandoned children in a rural area of the Philippines. “We have 286 there, a day school and a nursery school,” he said. “I also have a children’s home in India where we have 32 girls who are destitute. Most of them are just girls off the street who have had no education and no healthcare, but they have a good home now and they do very well.” Mr Mosey, who lives near Kendal, in Cumbria, was invited to the city by Steve Redman, the pastor of the Ark Church, which meets at Foxwood Community Centre, in Bellhouse Way [York]. (...)
The event is happening on Sunday, November 8, at 7pm.
[From an article in The Press, a newspaper circulating in York.]
Tuesday 27 October 2009
Scottish investigators review case of 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
[This is the headline over a report by Jennifer Glasse on the website of the radio station Voice of America. The report (which can be listened to on the same website) reads in part:]
Scottish police have just announced they are looking into evidence surrounding the 1988 bombing of an American airliner flying from London to New York. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Some victims' families had been trying to convince British authorities to reopen the case, after the only person convicted of involvement, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi dropped his appeal just before he was released by Scottish authorities because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix's brother Peter was one of the victims of Lockerbie. She has mixed feelings about Scottish authorities reviewing the criminal investigation. "I do have a concern that the criminal investigation may get in the way of a decision to hold a full public inquiry," she said.
Dix and some other family members say British officials have in the past used the Scottish criminal investigation as an excuse to not hold a public inquiry which they see as their best chance to find out how Lockerbie was allowed to happen and who was responsible. Prosecutors have always said that al-Megrahi wasn't acting alone. (...)
"...it is my professional opinion that on the evidence led at the trial Abdel Baset Megrahi was wrongly convicted. It's a question of law. It's not a question of opinion or of counting heads. It's a simple question of law," said Robert Black, a professor of Scots law (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission backs him up. In 2007 it issued a ruling giving six reasons why there is reason to believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Al-Megrahi had been planning an appeal, but he dropped it just before he was released, opening the door for a possible public inquiry. Black says both the legal and political establishment in Scotland don't want an inquiry because they're afraid of what it will turn up. (...)
Many American victims' families disagree. They were outraged at al-Megrahi's release, and consider the case closed. But the Reverend John Mosey, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed in the bombing, has his own idea who might be guilty. "Having attended the whole trial except maybe one and a half weeks in Poland, ten months, I came away feeling that, still feeling that, the Palestinian group- the PFLPGC and Ahmed Gabril, protected by the Syrians and financed by Iran, were guilty, but we can't prove that at this point," he said.
Dr. Jim Swire is the father of a woman killed in the bombing. He thinks the bomb was planted at London's Heathrow airport, not in Malta as prosecutors alleged. He points to a break-in in Heathrow's baggage area hours before Pan Am flight 103 left London. "When you add that to the fact that the plane that took off, and was blown up, took off and was loaded completely at the Heathrow Airport. And quite apart from the fact that I myself took a copy of the Lockerbie bomb on board a British Airways plane at that same airport in 1989 and wasn't stopped from doing so and flew to America with it. It seemed to us very obvious that there were major, major flaws in security at that airport," he said.
The news that Scottish authorities are pursuing possible new evidence in the case came as UK families of Lockerbie victims delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking for the public inquiry every former British government has denied them. Britain's foreign minister said this week if there is any question of an inquiry, it will be up to Scotland to address it.
[Time magazine's coverage of these recent "developments" can be read here. It is of interest principally because, unlike every other report I have seen, it points out that the email to relatives from Crown Official Lesley Miller announcing the police review of the case dates from [3rd] September 2009. How did it come about that the press publicised it only on 25 October, the very day that UK Families-Flight 103's call to the Prime Minister to set up a full independent inquiry was published? Further evidence, if any were needed, of a spoiling operation?]
Scottish police have just announced they are looking into evidence surrounding the 1988 bombing of an American airliner flying from London to New York. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Some victims' families had been trying to convince British authorities to reopen the case, after the only person convicted of involvement, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi dropped his appeal just before he was released by Scottish authorities because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix's brother Peter was one of the victims of Lockerbie. She has mixed feelings about Scottish authorities reviewing the criminal investigation. "I do have a concern that the criminal investigation may get in the way of a decision to hold a full public inquiry," she said.
Dix and some other family members say British officials have in the past used the Scottish criminal investigation as an excuse to not hold a public inquiry which they see as their best chance to find out how Lockerbie was allowed to happen and who was responsible. Prosecutors have always said that al-Megrahi wasn't acting alone. (...)
"...it is my professional opinion that on the evidence led at the trial Abdel Baset Megrahi was wrongly convicted. It's a question of law. It's not a question of opinion or of counting heads. It's a simple question of law," said Robert Black, a professor of Scots law (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission backs him up. In 2007 it issued a ruling giving six reasons why there is reason to believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Al-Megrahi had been planning an appeal, but he dropped it just before he was released, opening the door for a possible public inquiry. Black says both the legal and political establishment in Scotland don't want an inquiry because they're afraid of what it will turn up. (...)
Many American victims' families disagree. They were outraged at al-Megrahi's release, and consider the case closed. But the Reverend John Mosey, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed in the bombing, has his own idea who might be guilty. "Having attended the whole trial except maybe one and a half weeks in Poland, ten months, I came away feeling that, still feeling that, the Palestinian group- the PFLPGC and Ahmed Gabril, protected by the Syrians and financed by Iran, were guilty, but we can't prove that at this point," he said.
Dr. Jim Swire is the father of a woman killed in the bombing. He thinks the bomb was planted at London's Heathrow airport, not in Malta as prosecutors alleged. He points to a break-in in Heathrow's baggage area hours before Pan Am flight 103 left London. "When you add that to the fact that the plane that took off, and was blown up, took off and was loaded completely at the Heathrow Airport. And quite apart from the fact that I myself took a copy of the Lockerbie bomb on board a British Airways plane at that same airport in 1989 and wasn't stopped from doing so and flew to America with it. It seemed to us very obvious that there were major, major flaws in security at that airport," he said.
The news that Scottish authorities are pursuing possible new evidence in the case came as UK families of Lockerbie victims delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking for the public inquiry every former British government has denied them. Britain's foreign minister said this week if there is any question of an inquiry, it will be up to Scotland to address it.
[Time magazine's coverage of these recent "developments" can be read here. It is of interest principally because, unlike every other report I have seen, it points out that the email to relatives from Crown Official Lesley Miller announcing the police review of the case dates from [3rd] September 2009. How did it come about that the press publicised it only on 25 October, the very day that UK Families-Flight 103's call to the Prime Minister to set up a full independent inquiry was published? Further evidence, if any were needed, of a spoiling operation?]
Police challenged over Lockerbie DNA “smokescreen”
[What follows is the text of a press release issued by Scottish National Party MSP, Christine Grahame.]
Claims that fresh DNA techniques could open up new leads in the Lockerbie case have been dismissed as a smokescreen by SNP MSP Christine Grahame. Ms Grahame has called on Detective Chief [Inspector] Michael Dalgleish who is heading the current review of evidence related to the Lockerbie bombing to explain why materials which it was claimed were packed along with the bomb were only checked for DNA in 2006.
Ms Grahame has also called on the police to confirm that a report dated 18th October 2006 by the Forensic Science Service commissioned on behalf of the Crown Office did find a DNA profile in the remains of an umbrella which the prosecution claimed was one of the items Megrahi had bought in Malta, but that it did not match his DNA. Ms Grahame said:
“It is difficult to believe that all of the actions and reactions of the Crown Office are purely coincidental so I remain hugely sceptical about the timing of this review of evidence. I am particularly concerned at the spin being placed on it by the Crown Office and the police that new forensic techniques will potentially yield a range of new suspects.
“A report written by John Robert Lowe of the Forensic Science Service in October 2006 and which I understand [DCI] Dalgleish has read, was able to establish that a crucial piece of evidence, the remains of an umbrella packed into the case carrying the bomb had a DNA profile still on it.
“I further understand that this was the first time any DNA testing had been undertaken on the bomb case contents despite the technique being available to investigators at the time. That report determined the DNA extracted from the inside of the umbrella did not belong to Mr Megrahi.
“The Crown Office claim Mr Megrahi bought this umbrella, as new, along with other items of clothing before packing these into a case containing the bomb.
“To dispel any suggestion that this review of evidence is little more than a smokescreen and a stalling tactic the Police and the Crown Office should clarify why key evidence was not DNA tested until 2006 and specifically what “fresh” forensic areas they are considering.”
Ms Grahame also said she had seen documents which show that Tony Gauci the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed Megrahi had bought the items said to have been packed with the bomb, was actively seeking payment for his evidence ahead of the trial. It recently emerged that Gauci had reportedly received over $2million from the US Government. Ms Grahame added:
“I have seen additional documents that were to be part of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal that show Tony Gauci, the Crown’s key witness, was actively looking for financial payment in return for his evidence. Both Scottish investigators and the FBI were made aware of this at the time of the investigation.
“An initial figure of $10,000 is mentioned in the documents but make it plain that potentially an “unlimited amount” could be made available in future. During the Maltese phase of the investigation a US satellite was monitoring telephone conversations made by Tony Gauci and documents I have seen show concerns being raised by the FBI to Scottish police investigators about Gauci’s welfare giving his emerging role as a key prosecution witness. The documents state that Gauci was wanting $10,000 “immediately”. At the trial Scottish police investigators and the Crown were aware of this financial interest by Gauci but did not inform Mr Megrahi’s Defence team.”
The offer of financial inducement breaches the specific instructions given by the then Lord Advocate Lord Fraser, at the time of the investigation that no financial inducement “of any kind” was to be made to any potential witness ahead of the trial.
”It casts a further dark shadow over the safety of the conviction and leaves the police and the Crown Office with many questions still to answer,” Ms Grahame added.
Note to editors
John Robert Lowe is a forensic scientist with the Forensic Science Service and has been regular used by the Crown Office as an expert witness.
[The Sun has a report on this issue by Myra Philp. It can be read here.]
Claims that fresh DNA techniques could open up new leads in the Lockerbie case have been dismissed as a smokescreen by SNP MSP Christine Grahame. Ms Grahame has called on Detective Chief [Inspector] Michael Dalgleish who is heading the current review of evidence related to the Lockerbie bombing to explain why materials which it was claimed were packed along with the bomb were only checked for DNA in 2006.
Ms Grahame has also called on the police to confirm that a report dated 18th October 2006 by the Forensic Science Service commissioned on behalf of the Crown Office did find a DNA profile in the remains of an umbrella which the prosecution claimed was one of the items Megrahi had bought in Malta, but that it did not match his DNA. Ms Grahame said:
“It is difficult to believe that all of the actions and reactions of the Crown Office are purely coincidental so I remain hugely sceptical about the timing of this review of evidence. I am particularly concerned at the spin being placed on it by the Crown Office and the police that new forensic techniques will potentially yield a range of new suspects.
“A report written by John Robert Lowe of the Forensic Science Service in October 2006 and which I understand [DCI] Dalgleish has read, was able to establish that a crucial piece of evidence, the remains of an umbrella packed into the case carrying the bomb had a DNA profile still on it.
“I further understand that this was the first time any DNA testing had been undertaken on the bomb case contents despite the technique being available to investigators at the time. That report determined the DNA extracted from the inside of the umbrella did not belong to Mr Megrahi.
“The Crown Office claim Mr Megrahi bought this umbrella, as new, along with other items of clothing before packing these into a case containing the bomb.
“To dispel any suggestion that this review of evidence is little more than a smokescreen and a stalling tactic the Police and the Crown Office should clarify why key evidence was not DNA tested until 2006 and specifically what “fresh” forensic areas they are considering.”
Ms Grahame also said she had seen documents which show that Tony Gauci the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed Megrahi had bought the items said to have been packed with the bomb, was actively seeking payment for his evidence ahead of the trial. It recently emerged that Gauci had reportedly received over $2million from the US Government. Ms Grahame added:
“I have seen additional documents that were to be part of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal that show Tony Gauci, the Crown’s key witness, was actively looking for financial payment in return for his evidence. Both Scottish investigators and the FBI were made aware of this at the time of the investigation.
“An initial figure of $10,000 is mentioned in the documents but make it plain that potentially an “unlimited amount” could be made available in future. During the Maltese phase of the investigation a US satellite was monitoring telephone conversations made by Tony Gauci and documents I have seen show concerns being raised by the FBI to Scottish police investigators about Gauci’s welfare giving his emerging role as a key prosecution witness. The documents state that Gauci was wanting $10,000 “immediately”. At the trial Scottish police investigators and the Crown were aware of this financial interest by Gauci but did not inform Mr Megrahi’s Defence team.”
The offer of financial inducement breaches the specific instructions given by the then Lord Advocate Lord Fraser, at the time of the investigation that no financial inducement “of any kind” was to be made to any potential witness ahead of the trial.
”It casts a further dark shadow over the safety of the conviction and leaves the police and the Crown Office with many questions still to answer,” Ms Grahame added.
Note to editors
John Robert Lowe is a forensic scientist with the Forensic Science Service and has been regular used by the Crown Office as an expert witness.
[The Sun has a report on this issue by Myra Philp. It can be read here.]
Monday 26 October 2009
We still need a Lockerbie inquiry
[This is the heading over an article on The Guardian's website by Pamela Dix, whose brother was one of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. It reads as follows:]
For 20 years, UK Families Flight 103 has been campaigning for a full independent inquiry into the events leading up to and after the Lockerbie plane bombing. In the request for an inquiry, the families group has clearly identified the areas of concern and the questions that need to be answered. This request is separate from the need for an independent, criminal investigation to bring to justice those responsible.
The fact that so far the outcome of the criminal investigation has not been conclusive is disappointing. Widespread concern around the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has raised a number of issues. There are also issues about the division of responsibility between Westminster and Holyrood and whether it was right to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But everyone is in agreement that whether or not he is guilty, others must have been involved. We hope that the fact that the criminal investigation is to continue will contribute to our quest for the truth.
The circumstances of the trial, the appeal and the Scottish judicial process have prompted calls for a separate inquiry. There is an argument that any such investigation is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament, with the powers to call upon the UK government, and its officers, to explain its position.
However, this is quite separate from the families' continuing call for an independent, wider inquiry. Some of the issues that we wish to see included in such an inquiry relate to national security, foreign policy and transport safety – all responsibilities that since devolution remain within the remit of the UK government. It is galling to listen to David Miliband's off the cuff response to our request for an inquiry: that the biggest mass murder in the UK had nothing to do with his government. If this were the case, why did Robin Cook, Jack Straw and Tony Blair have ongoing discussions with us about a possible public inquiry, both before and after devolution? At no stage was it suggested that this was a matter for the devolved Scottish parliament.
Underpinning our request for this inquiry is our belief that unless we understand and acknowledge the complicated series of events that led to the decision to put a bomb on Flight 103, no lessons will be learned. The fact that Straw told us personally that he would have instigated an inquiry at the time if he had been in a position to do so does not lessen our frustration in failing to get ministers to accept what must be done.
Governments need to understand the tenacity of relatives involved in such tragedies. There have been numerous occasions when we could have caved in under the lack of interest, political pragmatism or sheer ignorance of those in authority. Yet nearly 21 years after the explosion that killed 270 dearly loved people, we have not lost heart that finally – surely – the fourth prime minister to hold that office since the disaster will do the right thing. This is why relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 stood at the gates of Downing Street to hand over a letter requesting the prime minister, Gordon Brown, to instigate a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the destruction of the aircraft.
For 20 years, UK Families Flight 103 has been campaigning for a full independent inquiry into the events leading up to and after the Lockerbie plane bombing. In the request for an inquiry, the families group has clearly identified the areas of concern and the questions that need to be answered. This request is separate from the need for an independent, criminal investigation to bring to justice those responsible.
The fact that so far the outcome of the criminal investigation has not been conclusive is disappointing. Widespread concern around the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has raised a number of issues. There are also issues about the division of responsibility between Westminster and Holyrood and whether it was right to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But everyone is in agreement that whether or not he is guilty, others must have been involved. We hope that the fact that the criminal investigation is to continue will contribute to our quest for the truth.
The circumstances of the trial, the appeal and the Scottish judicial process have prompted calls for a separate inquiry. There is an argument that any such investigation is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament, with the powers to call upon the UK government, and its officers, to explain its position.
However, this is quite separate from the families' continuing call for an independent, wider inquiry. Some of the issues that we wish to see included in such an inquiry relate to national security, foreign policy and transport safety – all responsibilities that since devolution remain within the remit of the UK government. It is galling to listen to David Miliband's off the cuff response to our request for an inquiry: that the biggest mass murder in the UK had nothing to do with his government. If this were the case, why did Robin Cook, Jack Straw and Tony Blair have ongoing discussions with us about a possible public inquiry, both before and after devolution? At no stage was it suggested that this was a matter for the devolved Scottish parliament.
Underpinning our request for this inquiry is our belief that unless we understand and acknowledge the complicated series of events that led to the decision to put a bomb on Flight 103, no lessons will be learned. The fact that Straw told us personally that he would have instigated an inquiry at the time if he had been in a position to do so does not lessen our frustration in failing to get ministers to accept what must be done.
Governments need to understand the tenacity of relatives involved in such tragedies. There have been numerous occasions when we could have caved in under the lack of interest, political pragmatism or sheer ignorance of those in authority. Yet nearly 21 years after the explosion that killed 270 dearly loved people, we have not lost heart that finally – surely – the fourth prime minister to hold that office since the disaster will do the right thing. This is why relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 stood at the gates of Downing Street to hand over a letter requesting the prime minister, Gordon Brown, to instigate a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the destruction of the aircraft.
Lockerbie: was Anthony Gauci's memory reliable?
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times by Professor David Canter, Director of the International Research Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Huddersfield, President of the International Academy of Investigative Psychology and author of Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action. It reads as follows:]
The problem with the key evidence in the Lockerbie case is that it ignored discoveries made by psychologists more than 100 years ago. When the Scottish police resume their inquiries into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, they will be reminded that the evidence that condemned Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was probably based on a vague memory that somehow became convincing enough for the court to convict.
By dropping his appeal so that he could die at peace at home in Libya, al-Megrahi removed the opportunity of having the challenges to the evidence against him revealed in court for all to see. The furore over his release masked the debate about whether he really was the man who planted the bomb on Flight 103 and has drawn attention away from the significance of the eyewitness testimony provided by Anthony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper.
It was Mr Gauci’s claim that the man who bought clothes resembling those found in the suitcase with the bomb was indeed al-Megrahi, which was the foundation of the evidence against him. Yet many studies since those of the late 19th century of the psychology of memory have raised doubts about witness testimony. They raise important questions about the validity of what Gauci eventually claimed in court he thought he had remembered. This was the conclusion I came to when I was instructed by al-Megrahi’s solicitor to review Mr Gauci’s testimony. With the assistance of two colleagues, I produced a 102-page report that examined 96 statements surrounding Mr Gauci’s claim that al-Megrahi had bought the clothes in his shop before December 21, 1988.
There were a number of problems with Mr Gauci’s memories, not least in his identification in court, 13 years after the bomb exploded, that the man standing in the dock, al-Megrahi, had bought the clothes. Police had asked Mr Gauci more than ten times to pinpoint the person who came to his shop: at various times he identified various different people.
Many experts have pointed out how unreliable dock identifications are. They are a form of leading question which suggests that the person who has been brought to justice is very likely to be guilty.
On February 15, 1991, two and a half years after a man possibly had visited his shop, Mr Gauci was shown 12 photographs and asked if he recognised the purchaser. At that stage in the investigation the police were focusing on al-Megrahi as the likely culprit. They, therefore, had a lot invested in Mr Gauci choosing al-Megrahi from the photographs. There is a considerable psychological research to show that people can be influenced in their judgments by subtle cues from others around them. So it seems very likely that inadvertently Mr Gauci could have been influenced to choose the photograph the police wanted.
We tested this possibility by running an experiment with two interviewers. Both were told to ask a random selection of people which of the people in the 12 photographs the police had used was likely to be the Lockerbie bomber. They were told to be careful not to indicate who they thought the culprit might be. Interviewer A was told that picture 8 was the culprit and interviewer B was not told anything. Of the 20 people interviewed by B none selected picture 8. Of the 36 interviewed by A, 15 chose picture 8. This small study, with the actual material used by the police, accords with many other explorations of these issues and many cases in which confident eyewitness identification has later proven false.
The police and court seemed to hold an uninformed, naive view of how human memory works. The popular misconception is that memory is like an old-fashioned photographic plate that records what happens, but then slowly fades with time. There even seems to be the assumption that the plate can be dusted down and put in a bright light to reveal more clearly what was there all along.
This certainly was the basis of the claim that Mr Gauci’s memories of an alleged all-important shopping spree actually improved with time as he thought more carefully about the event. But all the evidence is that, unless the event is of great emotional significance and attended to very carefully at the time, it fades from our minds very quickly. So for a shopkeeper to claim he had a memory of what clothes were bought and by whom, when the purchases and purchaser were unremarkable, seems very unlikely, especially so long after the event.
Some of the most important statements by Mr Gauci were made on January 30, 1990, a good two years after the bomb went off. Over and over again it appears that Mr Gauci is keen to do everything he can to remember something that will be of assistance. This leads to a development of what he thinks he remembers when prompted by the police interviewer. We identified at least 20 crucial aspects of Mr Gauci’s memory of the purchase of the clothing that varied considerably over the years from one statement to the next. How the purchaser left the shop, whether he got into a taxi or not, all of these details are vague to begin with but become more precise under police questioning, even though the initial interview was at least ten months after the purchases were reputedly made and subsequent statements were two or more years later.
The evidence in court many years later still gives the impression of confident clear memories. But the earlier statements put these in different light. For instance, Mr Gauci initially claimed the man bought no shirts, but ten years later said in court that he had. In early statements he said that the purchase was well before Christmas as there were no Christmas lights in the shop, but by the time he came to give evidence in court the lights were clearly present.
Whole volumes have been written in recent years on how readily people can come to believe that they remembered things that never occurred but which were actually suggested to them in earlier interviews. There is no simple relationship between how confident a person is in what he thinks he remembers and how accurate that memory is. Yet this psychological truth was ignored by the court that convicted al-Megrahi.
The problem with the key evidence in the Lockerbie case is that it ignored discoveries made by psychologists more than 100 years ago. When the Scottish police resume their inquiries into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, they will be reminded that the evidence that condemned Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was probably based on a vague memory that somehow became convincing enough for the court to convict.
By dropping his appeal so that he could die at peace at home in Libya, al-Megrahi removed the opportunity of having the challenges to the evidence against him revealed in court for all to see. The furore over his release masked the debate about whether he really was the man who planted the bomb on Flight 103 and has drawn attention away from the significance of the eyewitness testimony provided by Anthony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper.
It was Mr Gauci’s claim that the man who bought clothes resembling those found in the suitcase with the bomb was indeed al-Megrahi, which was the foundation of the evidence against him. Yet many studies since those of the late 19th century of the psychology of memory have raised doubts about witness testimony. They raise important questions about the validity of what Gauci eventually claimed in court he thought he had remembered. This was the conclusion I came to when I was instructed by al-Megrahi’s solicitor to review Mr Gauci’s testimony. With the assistance of two colleagues, I produced a 102-page report that examined 96 statements surrounding Mr Gauci’s claim that al-Megrahi had bought the clothes in his shop before December 21, 1988.
There were a number of problems with Mr Gauci’s memories, not least in his identification in court, 13 years after the bomb exploded, that the man standing in the dock, al-Megrahi, had bought the clothes. Police had asked Mr Gauci more than ten times to pinpoint the person who came to his shop: at various times he identified various different people.
Many experts have pointed out how unreliable dock identifications are. They are a form of leading question which suggests that the person who has been brought to justice is very likely to be guilty.
On February 15, 1991, two and a half years after a man possibly had visited his shop, Mr Gauci was shown 12 photographs and asked if he recognised the purchaser. At that stage in the investigation the police were focusing on al-Megrahi as the likely culprit. They, therefore, had a lot invested in Mr Gauci choosing al-Megrahi from the photographs. There is a considerable psychological research to show that people can be influenced in their judgments by subtle cues from others around them. So it seems very likely that inadvertently Mr Gauci could have been influenced to choose the photograph the police wanted.
We tested this possibility by running an experiment with two interviewers. Both were told to ask a random selection of people which of the people in the 12 photographs the police had used was likely to be the Lockerbie bomber. They were told to be careful not to indicate who they thought the culprit might be. Interviewer A was told that picture 8 was the culprit and interviewer B was not told anything. Of the 20 people interviewed by B none selected picture 8. Of the 36 interviewed by A, 15 chose picture 8. This small study, with the actual material used by the police, accords with many other explorations of these issues and many cases in which confident eyewitness identification has later proven false.
The police and court seemed to hold an uninformed, naive view of how human memory works. The popular misconception is that memory is like an old-fashioned photographic plate that records what happens, but then slowly fades with time. There even seems to be the assumption that the plate can be dusted down and put in a bright light to reveal more clearly what was there all along.
This certainly was the basis of the claim that Mr Gauci’s memories of an alleged all-important shopping spree actually improved with time as he thought more carefully about the event. But all the evidence is that, unless the event is of great emotional significance and attended to very carefully at the time, it fades from our minds very quickly. So for a shopkeeper to claim he had a memory of what clothes were bought and by whom, when the purchases and purchaser were unremarkable, seems very unlikely, especially so long after the event.
Some of the most important statements by Mr Gauci were made on January 30, 1990, a good two years after the bomb went off. Over and over again it appears that Mr Gauci is keen to do everything he can to remember something that will be of assistance. This leads to a development of what he thinks he remembers when prompted by the police interviewer. We identified at least 20 crucial aspects of Mr Gauci’s memory of the purchase of the clothing that varied considerably over the years from one statement to the next. How the purchaser left the shop, whether he got into a taxi or not, all of these details are vague to begin with but become more precise under police questioning, even though the initial interview was at least ten months after the purchases were reputedly made and subsequent statements were two or more years later.
The evidence in court many years later still gives the impression of confident clear memories. But the earlier statements put these in different light. For instance, Mr Gauci initially claimed the man bought no shirts, but ten years later said in court that he had. In early statements he said that the purchase was well before Christmas as there were no Christmas lights in the shop, but by the time he came to give evidence in court the lights were clearly present.
Whole volumes have been written in recent years on how readily people can come to believe that they remembered things that never occurred but which were actually suggested to them in earlier interviews. There is no simple relationship between how confident a person is in what he thinks he remembers and how accurate that memory is. Yet this psychological truth was ignored by the court that convicted al-Megrahi.
"Eight other 'high level' suspects"
The Scotsman ("Lockerbie: eight other 'high-level' suspects") and The Herald ("Police hunt for eight 'high level' Lockerbie accomplices") and other newspapers refer to the re-invigorated police investigation as focussing particularly on eight high level suspects.
I wonder whether, just possibly, these eight suspects might be the eight persons mentioned as associates and superiors of Abdelbaset Megrahi in the (highly tendentious) Briefing Note on the Pan Am 103 disaster issued by the US State Department in April 1992? They are (in order of appearance in the document):
Sa'id Rashid
Izz Aldin Hinshiri
Badri Hasan
Rifi Ali al-Sharif
Abdallah Sanussi
Ibrahim al-Bishari
Nasir Ali Ashur
Ibrahim Nayili.
One further name is mentioned - Abdallah Mahmud Hijazi - of whom, however, the document states "we lack concrete evidence of direct linkage".
I wonder whether, just possibly, these eight suspects might be the eight persons mentioned as associates and superiors of Abdelbaset Megrahi in the (highly tendentious) Briefing Note on the Pan Am 103 disaster issued by the US State Department in April 1992? They are (in order of appearance in the document):
Sa'id Rashid
Izz Aldin Hinshiri
Badri Hasan
Rifi Ali al-Sharif
Abdallah Sanussi
Ibrahim al-Bishari
Nasir Ali Ashur
Ibrahim Nayili.
One further name is mentioned - Abdallah Mahmud Hijazi - of whom, however, the document states "we lack concrete evidence of direct linkage".
A cynical spoiling operation?
Intriguing, is it not, that on the very day that UK Families-Flight 103 submits a letter to the Prime Minister calling for a full, independent inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster (and gains the support of a major national newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph) the story breaks, citing Crown Office sources, that the investigation is not closed and that a police review is being carried out?
Not, of course, that the case against Abdelbaset Megrahi will be scrutinised. He has been convicted by a Scottish court and so is indubitably guilty. Forget the concerns of a bunch of meddlesome do-gooders like the UN observer, Professor Hans Köchler, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Forget the material that has been placed into the public domain on Mr Megrahi's website. If three Scottish judges say he is guilty, then guilty he must be. The fact that the SCCRC regarded those judges' findings on crucial matters as conclusions that, on the evidence, no reasonable court could have reached, can be either completely ignored or treated with lofty contempt. If the establishment decides that a man is guilty, then guilty he is and most assuredly will remain.
What follows are excerpts from the coverage of this story in the "serious" press and The Scotsman.
The Times: "Lockerbie relatives suspect investigation will head off public inquiry"
'Relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster are worried that the police investigation into the atrocity is being stepped up in an attempt to scupper their demands for a full public inquiry. (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, said: “The argument which has been consistently used against us having the public inquiry we want is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
'“I find it an extraordinary coincidence that the latest development in the police case emerged on the same day the families demanded a proper investigation from Gordon Brown.” (...)
'Martin Cadman, who lost his son William in the 1988 bombing, also raised concerns. He said: “It’s very curious the way the law is going about things. We’ve been led up the garden path by the authorities for a long time. I’m deeply suspicious of this.”'
The Herald: "Lockerbie relatives cautiously welcome review"
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims have welcomed a review of the criminal investigation into the atrocity but warned that it should not stand in the way of a full public inquiry.
'Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among the 270 killed, said yesterday a desktop review of the criminal inquiry has always been the excuse to block a full investigation into how Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie on December 21 1988.'
The Scotsman: "Lockerbie: eight other 'high-level' suspects"
'Eight suspects who may have been involved in the Lockerbie bombing have never been investigated because the Libyan government refused to co-operate with Scottish police, The Scotsman has learned. The individuals emerged as possible "high-level" suspects as part of the original inquiry into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 following the atrocity in December 1988.
'Now The Scotsman can reveal that the eight – all thought to be male – were never ruled out of the investigation because Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi refused to release them for questioning. (...)
'Meanwhile, the Crown Office moved to play down suggestions that a wholesale review of the case was under way, stressing that there was no question of the Crown reopening the case against Megrahi himself.
'A spokeswoman added: "The open case concerns only the involvement of others with Megrahi in the murder of 270 people, and the Crown will continue to pursue such lines of inquiry that become available.
'"The trial court accepted the Crown's position that Mr Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services and did not act alone." (...)
'The UK Families Flight 103 group revealed it had written to the Prime Minister demanding a full independent inquiry, a development quickly overtaken by news of the revived police investigation. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died on the plane, said he was concerned the ongoing police work might be used as an excuse to block any independent public inquiry.
'His concerns were echoed by the Rev John Mosey, who lost his daughter, Helga, in the attack. He said: "It may be a damage-limitation exercise on behalf of the government in order to say, 'We are doing this instead of giving you an independent inquiry'. That would not be acceptable."'
[This cartoon from The Guardian sums things up beautifully.]
Not, of course, that the case against Abdelbaset Megrahi will be scrutinised. He has been convicted by a Scottish court and so is indubitably guilty. Forget the concerns of a bunch of meddlesome do-gooders like the UN observer, Professor Hans Köchler, and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Forget the material that has been placed into the public domain on Mr Megrahi's website. If three Scottish judges say he is guilty, then guilty he must be. The fact that the SCCRC regarded those judges' findings on crucial matters as conclusions that, on the evidence, no reasonable court could have reached, can be either completely ignored or treated with lofty contempt. If the establishment decides that a man is guilty, then guilty he is and most assuredly will remain.
What follows are excerpts from the coverage of this story in the "serious" press and The Scotsman.
The Times: "Lockerbie relatives suspect investigation will head off public inquiry"
'Relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie disaster are worried that the police investigation into the atrocity is being stepped up in an attempt to scupper their demands for a full public inquiry. (...)
'Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, said: “The argument which has been consistently used against us having the public inquiry we want is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation.
'“I find it an extraordinary coincidence that the latest development in the police case emerged on the same day the families demanded a proper investigation from Gordon Brown.” (...)
'Martin Cadman, who lost his son William in the 1988 bombing, also raised concerns. He said: “It’s very curious the way the law is going about things. We’ve been led up the garden path by the authorities for a long time. I’m deeply suspicious of this.”'
The Herald: "Lockerbie relatives cautiously welcome review"
'Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims have welcomed a review of the criminal investigation into the atrocity but warned that it should not stand in the way of a full public inquiry.
'Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among the 270 killed, said yesterday a desktop review of the criminal inquiry has always been the excuse to block a full investigation into how Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie on December 21 1988.'
The Scotsman: "Lockerbie: eight other 'high-level' suspects"
'Eight suspects who may have been involved in the Lockerbie bombing have never been investigated because the Libyan government refused to co-operate with Scottish police, The Scotsman has learned. The individuals emerged as possible "high-level" suspects as part of the original inquiry into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 following the atrocity in December 1988.
'Now The Scotsman can reveal that the eight – all thought to be male – were never ruled out of the investigation because Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi refused to release them for questioning. (...)
'Meanwhile, the Crown Office moved to play down suggestions that a wholesale review of the case was under way, stressing that there was no question of the Crown reopening the case against Megrahi himself.
'A spokeswoman added: "The open case concerns only the involvement of others with Megrahi in the murder of 270 people, and the Crown will continue to pursue such lines of inquiry that become available.
'"The trial court accepted the Crown's position that Mr Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services and did not act alone." (...)
'The UK Families Flight 103 group revealed it had written to the Prime Minister demanding a full independent inquiry, a development quickly overtaken by news of the revived police investigation. Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died on the plane, said he was concerned the ongoing police work might be used as an excuse to block any independent public inquiry.
'His concerns were echoed by the Rev John Mosey, who lost his daughter, Helga, in the attack. He said: "It may be a damage-limitation exercise on behalf of the government in order to say, 'We are doing this instead of giving you an independent inquiry'. That would not be acceptable."'
[This cartoon from The Guardian sums things up beautifully.]
Sunday 25 October 2009
Lockerbie questions
[This is the headline over a leader in the edition of The Herald for Monday, 26 October. It reads in part:]
Even if the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is guilty as charged, he must have had co-conspirators. (...)
The news that a police review of the entire body of evidence is being undertaken following the dropping of the freed Libyan’s second appeal is, therefore, welcome, even if it falls short of a full cold case review. Forensic science has been refined considerably since the original investigation and it is possible that further tests on certain items could yield new leads, provided that they have not been contaminated. A cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over this case, robbing the relatives of the 270 people who died that night of the bleak satisfaction of knowing that justice had been done and lessons learned. (...)
This police review of the Lockerbie case raises several questions. Given how much uncertainty surrounds what happened, would a major wide-ranging investigation not be more appropriate? And is it right to entrust such a review to just four officers from the Dumfries and Galloway force, headed by an officer who was involved in the original investigation? A limited review that does little more than cover old ground would serve little purpose except, possibly, to delay the wide-ranging independent government inquiry into the atrocity demanded by relatives of the British victims. As Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster, argues in a letter published in The Herald today, the “ongoing criminal investigation” has been repeatedly used to deny relatives the full inquiry they demand and deserve.
Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because “that’s the way our system works”, while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened “by those with required powers”. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.
Truth is not the only victim to consider here. Those bereaved by this atrocity have waited too long for answers. As Pamela Dix, whose brother died at Lockerbie, put it: “It is unfinished business.”
[The letter from Dr Swire referred to above is not available on the newspaper's website. But, as sent, it reads as follows:]
After more than 20 years, the Crown Office has just announced that the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation is to re-examine the available evidence and assess new channels of investigation. Their announcement coincides to the day with the public announcement by the UK Lockerbie families group 'UK Families-Flight 103' that they are yet again demanding (this time of Gordon Brown), a full inquiry into the failure to protect their loved ones and the identity of the perpetrators.
The 'ongoing criminal investigation' has been repeatedly used as a reason for denying us the full inquiry into the truth as to why our families were not protected back in 1988, to which we are entitled under Human Rights law and now the Inquiries Act 2005.
If further serious meaningful investigation really is to be pursued by the police and Crown Office (CO) as to who else may have contributed to the ruthless murder of our families back in 1988 I would be the first to applaud it. Abu Talb, a potential incriminee has now been released from jail and according to the Crown Office itself was not granted immunity against prosecution over Lockerbie, though appearing as a witness at Zeist. That might be no bad place to start looking for the truth. Trouble is, if he bought 'the clothes from Gauci's shop' then Megrahi clearly didn't. Honest further investigation is almost bound to embarrass the Zeist verdict, on which the CO's reputation, and that of its members past and present heavily depends.
'Who else' I write. Interested parties should go to the website of the London Review of Books (lrb.co.uk) and read the article by Gareth Peirce, one of England's foremost miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers. Her article is titled 'The framing of Al Megrahi'. There they will find an erudite critism of the trial.
After that they might like to consider the words of the UN's specially appointed International Observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, who found the verdict against Megrahi 'incomprehensible' and a 'travesty of justice'. He was also forthright enough to say that the verdict could not have been reached without 'deliberate malpractice on the part of Scotland's Crown Office'.
That is a weighty charge, which the CO has not publicly contested, nor have Scottish or UK politicians.
Then interested parties might like to press for the public UK showing of Lockerbie Revisited, a brilliant documentary film by Gideon Levy of the Netherlands which has just won a major international prize, yet which no one in the UK has yet had the guts to screen outside the privilege of the Scottish Parliament, under the redoubtable wing of Christine Grahame MSP.
Forgive me, if for now the jury is out as to what the Crown Office are really up to. Let us not forget that very serious issues still surround the conduct of the Crown Office throughout this case, and the verdict against Al Megrahi in particular.
Even if the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is guilty as charged, he must have had co-conspirators. (...)
The news that a police review of the entire body of evidence is being undertaken following the dropping of the freed Libyan’s second appeal is, therefore, welcome, even if it falls short of a full cold case review. Forensic science has been refined considerably since the original investigation and it is possible that further tests on certain items could yield new leads, provided that they have not been contaminated. A cloud of uncertainty continues to hang over this case, robbing the relatives of the 270 people who died that night of the bleak satisfaction of knowing that justice had been done and lessons learned. (...)
This police review of the Lockerbie case raises several questions. Given how much uncertainty surrounds what happened, would a major wide-ranging investigation not be more appropriate? And is it right to entrust such a review to just four officers from the Dumfries and Galloway force, headed by an officer who was involved in the original investigation? A limited review that does little more than cover old ground would serve little purpose except, possibly, to delay the wide-ranging independent government inquiry into the atrocity demanded by relatives of the British victims. As Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster, argues in a letter published in The Herald today, the “ongoing criminal investigation” has been repeatedly used to deny relatives the full inquiry they demand and deserve.
Yesterday the British and Scottish Governments continued to play pass the parcel over who should call an inquiry. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was a matter for the Scots because “that’s the way our system works”, while a Scottish Government spokesman insisted that any inquiry had to be convened “by those with required powers”. The telephone has been in common use in Britain for more than 100 years. It is not beyond the wit of ministers in London and Edinburgh to agree on the format, structure and remit of a Lockerbie inquiry that hopefully would answer some remaining questions without turning into the open-ended Bloody Sunday-style affair.
Truth is not the only victim to consider here. Those bereaved by this atrocity have waited too long for answers. As Pamela Dix, whose brother died at Lockerbie, put it: “It is unfinished business.”
[The letter from Dr Swire referred to above is not available on the newspaper's website. But, as sent, it reads as follows:]
After more than 20 years, the Crown Office has just announced that the Lockerbie Criminal Investigation is to re-examine the available evidence and assess new channels of investigation. Their announcement coincides to the day with the public announcement by the UK Lockerbie families group 'UK Families-Flight 103' that they are yet again demanding (this time of Gordon Brown), a full inquiry into the failure to protect their loved ones and the identity of the perpetrators.
The 'ongoing criminal investigation' has been repeatedly used as a reason for denying us the full inquiry into the truth as to why our families were not protected back in 1988, to which we are entitled under Human Rights law and now the Inquiries Act 2005.
If further serious meaningful investigation really is to be pursued by the police and Crown Office (CO) as to who else may have contributed to the ruthless murder of our families back in 1988 I would be the first to applaud it. Abu Talb, a potential incriminee has now been released from jail and according to the Crown Office itself was not granted immunity against prosecution over Lockerbie, though appearing as a witness at Zeist. That might be no bad place to start looking for the truth. Trouble is, if he bought 'the clothes from Gauci's shop' then Megrahi clearly didn't. Honest further investigation is almost bound to embarrass the Zeist verdict, on which the CO's reputation, and that of its members past and present heavily depends.
'Who else' I write. Interested parties should go to the website of the London Review of Books (lrb.co.uk) and read the article by Gareth Peirce, one of England's foremost miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers. Her article is titled 'The framing of Al Megrahi'. There they will find an erudite critism of the trial.
After that they might like to consider the words of the UN's specially appointed International Observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, who found the verdict against Megrahi 'incomprehensible' and a 'travesty of justice'. He was also forthright enough to say that the verdict could not have been reached without 'deliberate malpractice on the part of Scotland's Crown Office'.
That is a weighty charge, which the CO has not publicly contested, nor have Scottish or UK politicians.
Then interested parties might like to press for the public UK showing of Lockerbie Revisited, a brilliant documentary film by Gideon Levy of the Netherlands which has just won a major international prize, yet which no one in the UK has yet had the guts to screen outside the privilege of the Scottish Parliament, under the redoubtable wing of Christine Grahame MSP.
Forgive me, if for now the jury is out as to what the Crown Office are really up to. Let us not forget that very serious issues still surround the conduct of the Crown Office throughout this case, and the verdict against Al Megrahi in particular.
Dr Swire doubts sincerity of Crown Office announcement
[In an article written for Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm, Dr Jim Swire casts doubt on the sincerity of the Crown Office's announcement of a review of the evidence in the Lockerbie case. He writes:]
Naturally the UK Lockerbie relatives would love to see a fully enabled objective criminal investigation re-examining all the currently available Lockerbie evidence.
But how can an objective criminal investigation not impinge on the verdict against Megrahi? The Crown Office's case against Megrahi depended on the evidence of identification by Gauci.
Yet we now know that when the clothing was in fact bought from Gauci's shop, Megrahi was not even on the island of Malta, but Abu Talb was. We also now know that Harry Bell of the investigating Scots police recorded that the Americans wanted to give Gauci $10,000 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow if conviction was successful. Clearly they must have thought the identification evidence critical.
It was in Talb's flat in Sweden that the Swedish police found further items of clothing from Gauci's shop. The Crown currently has no known explanation for this.
Yet if Talb, not Megrahi, bought the clothing, the verdict against Megrahi would have to be quashed. Are those currently and previously forming the Crown Office, as well as Colin Boyd, (the most implicated Lord Advocate), prepared to see their 'new investigative directions' lead to such an outcome? There is of course no evidence that any of them offered any inducements to Gauci or anyone else, but surely their careers and reputations depend on their past conduct of this case? So would the new criminal investigation be objective, I ask myself?
I cannot free my mind of he words of Prof Hans Koechler, the UN's appointed special International Observer at the court: he thought the verdict so incomprehensible that it could only have been reached through (his words) 'deliberate malpractice by Scotland's Crown Office.
So what to do? Observers should remember that under current Human Rights legislation and the Inquiries Act 2005, we the relatives have a right to a full and objective enquiry.
Meanwhile those who swear by the Megrahi verdict might like to visit the London Review of Books website and search for 'Megrahi' they will find a devastating analysis as to the conduct of the trial written by Gareth Peirce, one of England's most noted miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers.
Further, if the Crown Office are really to refer matters as alleged (for I personally have no communication from them) to 'forensic experts' it is to be hoped that they will never again try to use the thoroughly discredited Hayes and Feraday.
[In another article in the magazine, headed 'Cynicism and doubt over latest Crown Office “spoiler”', the following paragraph appears:
"Dr Jim Swire told the Firm that - contrary to their usual practice - the Crown Office have not even contacted him to advise that any new investigation was planned. He said the coincidental timing of the Crown’s announcement had unavoidably distracted attention from the same day announcement by UK Families [Flight] 103 that they had delivered a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to instigate a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie event under the Inquiries Act 2005. He described the Crown’s act as a “spoiler,” pointing out that any investigation would be useless as long as the Crown refused to quash the outstanding guilty verdict against Megrahi."]
Naturally the UK Lockerbie relatives would love to see a fully enabled objective criminal investigation re-examining all the currently available Lockerbie evidence.
But how can an objective criminal investigation not impinge on the verdict against Megrahi? The Crown Office's case against Megrahi depended on the evidence of identification by Gauci.
Yet we now know that when the clothing was in fact bought from Gauci's shop, Megrahi was not even on the island of Malta, but Abu Talb was. We also now know that Harry Bell of the investigating Scots police recorded that the Americans wanted to give Gauci $10,000 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow if conviction was successful. Clearly they must have thought the identification evidence critical.
It was in Talb's flat in Sweden that the Swedish police found further items of clothing from Gauci's shop. The Crown currently has no known explanation for this.
Yet if Talb, not Megrahi, bought the clothing, the verdict against Megrahi would have to be quashed. Are those currently and previously forming the Crown Office, as well as Colin Boyd, (the most implicated Lord Advocate), prepared to see their 'new investigative directions' lead to such an outcome? There is of course no evidence that any of them offered any inducements to Gauci or anyone else, but surely their careers and reputations depend on their past conduct of this case? So would the new criminal investigation be objective, I ask myself?
I cannot free my mind of he words of Prof Hans Koechler, the UN's appointed special International Observer at the court: he thought the verdict so incomprehensible that it could only have been reached through (his words) 'deliberate malpractice by Scotland's Crown Office.
So what to do? Observers should remember that under current Human Rights legislation and the Inquiries Act 2005, we the relatives have a right to a full and objective enquiry.
Meanwhile those who swear by the Megrahi verdict might like to visit the London Review of Books website and search for 'Megrahi' they will find a devastating analysis as to the conduct of the trial written by Gareth Peirce, one of England's most noted miscarriage of justice and human rights lawyers.
Further, if the Crown Office are really to refer matters as alleged (for I personally have no communication from them) to 'forensic experts' it is to be hoped that they will never again try to use the thoroughly discredited Hayes and Feraday.
[In another article in the magazine, headed 'Cynicism and doubt over latest Crown Office “spoiler”', the following paragraph appears:
"Dr Jim Swire told the Firm that - contrary to their usual practice - the Crown Office have not even contacted him to advise that any new investigation was planned. He said the coincidental timing of the Crown’s announcement had unavoidably distracted attention from the same day announcement by UK Families [Flight] 103 that they had delivered a letter to the Prime Minister asking him to instigate a full independent inquiry into the Lockerbie event under the Inquiries Act 2005. He described the Crown’s act as a “spoiler,” pointing out that any investigation would be useless as long as the Crown refused to quash the outstanding guilty verdict against Megrahi."]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)