Dr Jim Swire: 'I am proud to have met Megrahi ... he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie'

[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Mirror newspaper. It reads in part:]

They are two men from wildly different backgrounds - but they share the most extraordinary bond.

Dr Jim Swire last week came face to face with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.

Jim's daughter Flora was one of the victims, killed the day before her 24th birthday - but, instead of feeling hatred and anger, he embraced Megrahi.

"We are friends," says Jim, 74. "I believe he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie. We know enough about the other to be confident to know we're trying to achieve the same thing - a re-examination of the verdict."

Megrahi, 58, was convicted of mass murder and jailed for life in 2001. But last cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds. Jim, who heard all the evidence at Megrahi's trial, is convinced he's innocent.

Since first meeting in a Scottish prison in 2008, the pair have struck up an unlikely friendship that has outraged many of the relatives of those killed over Lockerbie. (...)

Megrahi was in the middle of a second appeal against his conviction when Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Minister, freed him in August last year.

Megrahi decided to drop the appeal, although it could have continued in his absence and even after his death.

Jim now wants the case reopened to get to the truth of who was behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the single worst terrorist atrocity on British soil. "We met seeking a common goal - the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice," says Jim.

That task now falls upon Scotland and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.

"I am entirely satisfied this man was not guilty as charged and that there is much more credible evidence that points to Syria and Iran." (...)

Flora Swire, who wanted to follow in her GP father's footsteps, had been accepted to study medicine at Cambridge when she died, flying to New York to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.

"She would be 45 now," says Jim. "We always feel the gap. Whenever we are together, at birthdays, weddings or Christmas, there's always somebody missing." In her memory, Jim planted Flora's Wood, near their former family home in Bromsgrove, Worcs, which sat on 17 acres. There are thousands of trees, a silent sanctuary shaped in a huge F. Unsurprisingly, Jim was filled with hatred for Megrahi and Libya when charges were first brought.

But after sitting through an unconvincing trial, Jim changed his mind. "I first met him in Greenock Prison, just before Christmas 2008," he says. "By then he was already uncomfortable sitting in a chair - he was known to have cancer in his spine and pelvis.

"I remember feeling glad that he had agreed to see me and by then I had strong doubts in my mind that he was the man who did it, but I wanted to see for myself, to look him in the eye."

The turning point came when Megrahi handed Jim an envelope. "He had been to the prison shop and bought a Christmas card," recalls Jim. "He wrote on it, 'To Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family.' Now that's a pretty remarkable thing for a devout Muslim to give to a Christian just before the Christian festival of Christmas.

"His attitude strongly reinforced my belief that this was not the guy. Imagine being cooped up in an alien prison for something you hadn't done.

Gift "I feel sorry for him. He has spent 10 years of his life locked up, under false pretences I believe, during which time he has developed this rampant cancer." (...)

The fact that Megrahi can now die in dignity surrounded by loved ones gives Jim great comfort but he still wants to lodge a posthumous appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.

"If Megrahi's relatives do not wish to push for an appeal, we will," he says.

"I don't want my daughter's death to be remembered against a verdict I think is false. I want to know who did kill her."

At the end of their hour together an exhausted Megrahi began to fade, his eyes falling heavy.

Jim got up out of his seat and clutched his friend's hands. "He is a very sick man and was getting tired," says Jim.

"So I said my goodbyes - maybe I'll see him again before he goes."

Scottish Parliament Written Answers

24 September 2010
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will publish any information it holds related to payments reportedly made by US authorities to key witnesses either before or after the trial of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, specifically payments to Tony Gauci, in relation to evidence he gave into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.
(S3W-35942)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
The only forum in which the Scottish Government or the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can make public any information connected to witnesses involved in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie bombing is in judicial proceedings in Scotland.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of comments by the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
(S3W-35943)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
I am aware of comments reported to have been made by my predecessor, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.

The fragment of electronic timer recovered from the wreckage of flight Pan Am 103, known as PT35, was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service.

Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Executive whether it is aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene with regard to the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. (S3W-35944)
Rt Hon Elish Angiolini QC:
There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.

A fragment of electronic timer recovered from the wreckage of flight Pan Am 103, known as PT35, was taken to the FBI laboratory in Washington DC by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing. The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service.

Bite the bullet, Alex!

[This is the headline over my most recent column in Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It can be read here. The magazine's associated news item can be accessed here. It reads as follows:]

Professor Robert Black has challenged First Minister Alex Salmond to "immediately set up an independent inquiry into the full circumstances of the Lockerbie case" and adds that the Government's view that it does not have the necessary powers to do so "will no longer wash".

"Until such time as, at the very least, the six grounds on which the SCCRC concluded that he might have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice are addressed, the Scottish criminal justice system will languish at home and abroad under a cloud of suspicion - and rightly so," Black says, writing exclusively in The Firm.

Black, a signatory to an international petition before the UN calling for such a widespread review, says the Scottish Government must not be allowed to "duck" its responsibilities. Earlier this week, Dr Jim Swire announced that UK families of the Pan Am 103 event plan to resurrect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's dropped appeal.

"But why let the matter drag on? The Scottish Government should immediately set up an independent inquiry into the full circumstances of the Lockerbie case. The excuse that under the devolution settlement Scotland does not have the necessary powers will no longer wash. The Scottish Government should not be allowed to expect other authorities to pick up the gauntlet," he says.

"This is undeniably a Scottish issue and the Scottish Government must not be allowed to duck it. Over to you, Alex. You know it’s the right thing to do."

[BBC Two Newsnight Scotland's programme on this issue can be viewed here.]

'New clues' on Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article that has just appeared on the website of the Tewkesbury Admag, which circulates in the Cotswold region of England. It reads as follows:]

The Cotswold father of a Lockerbie victim has just returned from Libya with the promise of new evidence from the man convicted of his daughter’s murder.

The retired GP is the father of Flora who died on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988 on the eve of her 24th birthday.

Dr Swire, who lives in Chipping Campden, was invited by Abdel Baset al-Magrahi via the Libyan ambassador in London, to visit him in Libya’s capital city Tripoli.

Dr Swire said al-Magrahi wanted to explain personally about abandoning his second appeal, and to tell the GP that if anything happened to him all the evidence from al-Magrahi’s own lawyers would be made available to him, Dr Swire said: “He is very ill but in better shape than I expected. When I go to see him I don’t feel that I am going to see my daughter’s murderer because I am satisfied he didn’t do it.

“We both have a common goal which is the re-examiniation of the evidence which led to the verdict which we believe was reached under political pressure.”

He added: “I am determined that my daughter’s murder should not be trussed up in a tissue of lies.”

Dr Swire explained that at the time of the trial 10 years ago there was so much conflicting evidence.

He said: “I was in the Netherlands throughout the trial with the object of seeing my daughter’s murderers brought to justice but the more I listened to the evidence the more I was convinced al-Magrahi didn’t do it.”

He believes that the American families of the victims were groomed to believe the verdict before it was reached.

His fears about the case were supported In 2007 when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review commission found six grounds for believing a miscarriage of justice may have taken place and granted al-Megrahi the right to a second appeal but he abandoned that when he was released last year on health grounds.

Dr Swire, aged 74, is hopeful that the campaign will be taken over by a younger man, the QC and professor of Scottish law, Robert Black from Edinburgh University.

Throughout the past 10 years Dr Swire has been interviewed by journalists from all over the world.

Last month a sell-out drama about the Lockerbie disaster and Dr Swire’s subsequent campaign was staged at the Edinburgh Festival and a film, and a possible debate in the House of Lords could be on the cards.

Megrahi "a very sick man"

Lockerbie bomber Abdelbeset al-Megrahi is "a very sick man," but there is no way to tell how long he will live, according to the father of one of the people who died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terror attack, saw al-Megrahi a week ago in Libya, he said Tuesday.

He also criticized U.S. senators who tried to hold hearings this summer into questions surrounding the release of al-Megrahi.

He said he had written to them to say it was more important to let Scottish legal proceedings run their course, since a review commission had found possible miscarriages of justice in the case.

"They didn't want to know about that," he said of the senators, saying they had not replied to his letter.

The Scottish government released al-Megrahi from prison just over a year ago on the grounds that he had cancer and was not likely to live more than three more months.

Swire, who does not believe that al-Megrahi is guilty, defended the decision.

"At three months, just over half [of people with his cancer] would be dead," Swire said.

But after three months, mortality rates level off, and there is no way to predict how long cancer sufferers will live, said Swire, a retired general practicioner.

"He can walk a few steps," Swire said of al-Megrahi.

He did not ask al-Megrahi or his doctors about the Libyan's medical condition out of respect for his privacy, he said.

But he said the fullness of his face suggested that he was on steroids to slow the cancer.

Al-Megrahi was appealing his conviction when he was freed on compassionate grounds in August 2009 and then dropped the appeal.

Swire thinks al-Megrahi feels guilty about having withdrawn his appeal, since it leaves him with no way to clear his name or for those -- like Swire -- who think he is innocent to have the case reviewed.

But al-Megrahi's death could change the legal playing field, Swire speculated.

"If he were to die, the the situation would change," and Swire might be able to get the case reopened, he said.

He believes that al-Megrahi "would see to it that we would be provided with all the information his defense team has assembled," he said, adding that the Libyan had not explicitly told him that.

Swire is in the minority among victims' families in thinking al-Megrahi is innocent.

American officials blasted al-Megrahi's release at the time and on the first anniversary.

[From a report just published on the CNN website, based on a televised interview with Dr Swire.]

Most appealing

[This is the headline over a long post by Steven Raeburn on his editor's blog on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads in part:]

Jim Swire’s announcement that he and the UK families of Pan Am 103 plan to resurrect Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad Al Megrahi’s appeal takes this tortured case into uncharted legal territory. Or I should say, takes it further into the uncharted legal territory that was first ploughed into when the model for a trial under Scots law held in Holland was first proposed as a solution to break the legal deadlock by Robert Black QC. Anything goes in this exceptional case. But whilst the jungle just got thicker, the path has perhaps become a little clearer.

It is a great strength that Scots law is so adaptable, but a source of serious concern if that adaptability is perverted to suit twisted political ends, rather than the interests of justice, as has so often been the case in this sorry, embarrassing, shameful, manufactured affair.

The proposal to pick up the case where Megrahi dropped it is a bold move, and a necessary one. Scots law is internationally derided for its Banana Republic ability to be so bent by political expediency as things currently stand. The Euro-phobic, and in particular Islamaphobic stance of UK mainstream media perhaps blinds many to the tone of the reporting of this case in jurisdictions other than our own, where for example the UN Observer’s remarks that the conduct of Megrahi’s dropped appeal “bore the hallmarks of an intelligence operation” were scarcely, if at all reported. Concluding the halted legal proceedings may be more than cathartic. It may be legally therapeutic.

The dropped appeal was only haltingly entered into after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission grudgingly, almost under duress, acknowledged that a staringly obvious miscarriage of justice may have occurred after three years of deliberations, during which their pledged timescale for reporting continually slipped by six-monthly or three-monthly increments. That gritted teeth conclusion -unlike its other, more direct, matter of fact summaries in almost all its other reviewed cases- took pains to rubbish the cumulative investigative work of the preceding 19 years that had been undertaken with skill, vigour and thoroughness of some of the UK’s finest journalists, work that had led to questions on the floor of Parliament, all of which it casually dismissed with cold and troubling assurance. In its place it posited a bare handful of troubling aspects of the conviction, centred around the identification of Megrahi. Virtually all else was ignored. An appeal, within narrow parameters only, commenced. The conviction, on a shaky nail from the outset, seemed likely to fall even with only this mild nudge.

There is precedent for an appeal to be continued in Scotland by relatives of the convicted person if he has died. Two such cases have been permitted in Scottish courts in the last ten years. What is not so certain is whether this can be done by Swire and the families whilst Megrahi lives after having dropped it himself, or if they can pick it up in the inevitable event of his death, if Megrahi‘s own family don‘t.

It is worthwhile reporting professor Robert Black QC at length here, on this very point.

"The legislation which set up the SCCRC envisages applications being made by persons other than the convicted person himself,” he says.

“The Commission may refer a case to the High Court if they believe (a) that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred and (b) that it is in the interests of justice that a reference should be made. Condition (a) is clearly satisfied: the SCCRC so decided in Mr Megrahi's own application. But what about condition (b)? Would the Commission regard it as in the interests of justice to refer a case back to the High Court where the convicted person himself had commenced an appeal on a SCCRC reference and then chosen to abandon it? The answer might depend on the precise circumstances in which the appellant came to abandon his appeal. Mr Megrahi's terminal illness; the fact that prisoner transfer was not open while the appeal was ongoing; and the fact that Mr Megrahi had no way of knowing that Kenny MacAskill would ultimately opt for compassionate release rather than prisoner transfer, would be relevant factors.

“An appeal in Scotland would require (a) a further reference back to the High Court of Justiciary by the SCCRC; and (b) the High Court to recognise the appellant (assuming that Mr Megrahi himself is no longer with us) as having a legitimate interest to pursue it. A spouse or close relative of Megrahi would qualify. But what of the spouse or close relative of a Lockerbie victim? This is entirely untrodden legal ground.”

That would appear to indicate that not only could the specific terms of Megrahi’s appeal - an appeal broken up and drawn out under a wicked timetable to an interminable length, almost as though intended to outlast the man himself - be resurrected, but new grounds that affected the case subsequent to the SCCRC referral could also be considered. And here there are rich pickings indeed.

“A factor which I think can be strongly argued to be important, is the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. This has suffered badly both at home and abroad because of widespread doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi,” Black says.

“It is in the interests of justice and of restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and its administration that these doubts be addressed. This can perhaps best be done by allowing the Criminal Appeal Court to consider the SCCRC's reasons for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in a fresh appeal challenging the original verdict.”

So yes, apparently the court could consider the case, as well as the merits of the original conviction, and the subsequent issues arising since the SCCRC referral in 2007. And here there is more. Much more. (...)

Lord Maclean told me that he and his fellow judges reached correct verdicts in this case on the basis of the evidence presented to them. That is a careful and interesting qualification. Megrahi originally lodged a special defence incriminating Mohamed Abu Talb, then a prisoner in Sweden on unrelated charges, but this defence was dropped, and only three from the hundred of named defence witnesses were actually called at the trial, in what can only be described as a token gesture of defence.

With no defence offered, even then, their Lordships were able to comfortably acquit co-accused Fhimah, and the remaining verdict convicting Megrahi is, putting it kindly, attenuated in the extreme. You should read it, if you haven’t already. It is barely logical, and is very far from a linear narration of a case proven beyond reasonable doubt.

What seems unavoidable is the conclusion that the UK, US and Libyan governments puppeteered the Zeist proceedings and current aftermath. It couldn‘t be concealed from the UN Observers. Scots law has been broken to accommodate the desired conclusions, and our own civil service are evidently the principal architects of the key local decision making. A recent letter from Tam Dalyell in the Scotsman read in part that the decision to release Mr Megrahi “had everything to do with avoiding an appeal which would have revealed the delaying and disgraceful behaviour of the Crown Office over 21 years, the "inexplicable" (the UN observer's word) decision by the judges at Zeist and the shortcomings in Mr Megrahi's original defence, not to mention the involvement of the American government in scapegoating Libya: The Americans should now be told that the motive for Mr Megrahi's release was the avoidance of the humiliation of Scottish justice in the eyes of the world.”

If that in itself does not meet the required condition that the matter must be sufficiently in the interests of justice to allow the Scottish Court to hear the families' pursuit of Megrahi’s appeal and to let justice run its course, then seriously, what is?

[Dr Swire's Newsnight Scotland interview can be seen here.]

Victim's father visits Megrahi in hospital

[The report in today's edition of The Scotsman on Dr Jim Swire's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi reads in part:]

The father of one of the Lockerbie bombing victims visited Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi in Libya and said he looked better than he expected.

Dr Jim Swire was invited to meet the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and the two men spent about an hour together in Megrahi's hospital ward in Tripoli on Tuesday, it emerged yesterday. (...)

Dr Swire, whose 23-year-old daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims of the atrocity, has long believed Megrahi is innocent and has spearheaded a campaign for a full inquiry into the atrocity. It was the first time the two men had met since Dr Swire visited him in prison in Scotland in December 2008.

He said: "It was a man-to-man confidential meeting. We have something in common, in that he wants to clear his name and I want to see the verdict re-examined under Scots law, so we have a common aim to overturn the verdict.

"I was very relieved to see him as well as he was. He is a very sick man, but he can get out of bed and walk, though not very far.

"I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family, his community and his country.

"These are a huge relief to the body in fighting cancer, because your immune system depends very heavily on how much stress you are under. Being in a foreign prison cell is about as stressful as it can be."

Megrahi was jailed for life for the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which exploded above Lockerbie.

He was given a fresh chance to clear his name after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) said there were six grounds where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. (...)

Dr Swire, 74, who lives in Gloucestershire, said he would meet Megrahi again if invited.

He said: "When I go to see him … I don't feel I'm going to see my daughter's murderer. I am satisfied he didn't do it."

It also emerged yesterday that Dr Swire is set to lead an appeal to clear Megrahi's name.

He said he had received legal advice that there was no legal bar to victims' relatives asking for an appeal following the convicted bomber's death.

[It is true that third parties -- not just the convicted person himself -- can make an application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and that more than one application can be made in respect of the same case. In Megrahi's case, the Commission has already decided that there may have been a miscarriage of justice, so that is not a significant hurdle. What is problematic is the requirement that a reference-back be "in the interests of justice". Some of the factors that would have to be considered there are the precise circumstances in which he himself abandoned his appeal and the attitude of his family if he himself is no longer alive. A factor which I think can be strongly argued to be important, is the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. This has suffered badly both at home and abroad because of widespread doubts about the justifiability of the conviction of Megrahi. It is in the interests of justice and of restoring confidence in our criminal justice system and its administration that these doubts be addressed. This can perhaps best be done by allowing the Criminal Appeal Court to consider the SCCRC's reasons for believing that there may have been a miscarriage of justice in a fresh appeal challenging the original verdict.

The report in The Times on Dr Swire's meeting can be read here; that on the BBC News website here; and that in the Daily Record here.]

‘Maltese man betrayed me for money’ – Al-Megrahi

[This is the headline over the longer article in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times mentioned in the preceding post. The article, by the paper's deputy editor Herman Grech, reads as follows:]

Gauci’s evidence was ‘clearly unreliable’

The Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and a victim’s father have accused a Maltese witness at the centre of the probe of “betraying a fellow human being for money”.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am aircraft, spoke exclusively to The Sunday Times just days after meeting Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, who was convicted of killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground.

The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al-Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was controversially released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.

When asked whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”

Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation. Neither has ever denied receiving payment.

Twenty-two years on from the bombing, Dr Swire remains convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.

“Everything I have heard since has reinforced that view, particularly the Heathrow break-in, knowledge of which was denied to the court and of course hidden from us, until after the verdict had been reached.”

Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.

Malta was implicated in the case because the prosecution said Mr Al-Megrahi had originally placed the unaccompanied bomb on an Air Malta flight.

It was argued the suitcase containing the bomb was then transferred at Frankfurt airport onto a feeder flight to London and then at Heathrow onto the Pan Am plane flight, PA103, that later exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland 38 minutes after take-off.

Mr Al-Megrahi was said to be a secret service agent for the Libyan government stationed in Malta with Libyan Arab Airlines.

Dr Swire said that evidence from a man who worked at a cafe at the former Luqa airport had claimed that a Scottish detective had suggested he might “refresh his memory” by remembering that if he produced evidence against the Libyan he would be likely to get enough money to allow him to travel abroad.

Both Mr Al-Megrahi and Dr Swire believe there was political interference in the case.

“If there really was direct interference either by those involved in the investigation, or by other arms of intelligence communities to achieve a politically ‘desirable’ verdict, the host nations would hardly welcome an exposure of their collusion to pervert the course of justice, even after 21 years,” Dr Swire said.

Some arguments against the conviction

• Air Malta was able to prove that all 55 bags loaded onto the flight to Frankfurt were ascribed to passengers.

• Claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow fits perfectly with the theory that a Syrian group was behind the bomb which downed the aircraft. Their bombs were known to be stable at ground level, but if put into an aircraft they would always explode between 35 and 40 minutes after take-off, thanks to an internal timer only being triggered by a drop in air pressure. The Lockerbie aircraft flew for 38 minutes before exploding.

• An FBI agent held up in front of US public television cameras a photograph of a timer circuit board through which he claimed to have linked the crime to Libya. Critics said the photograph was of a circuit board which had not been involved in proximity to any explosion. Court evidence later confirmed that the CIA had already been in possession of timers containing such circuit boards.

• A book had claimed that the Syria-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) had received $10 million or so from Iran immediately after Lockerbie. The PFLP-GC appears to have acted as a mercenary, or executive in carrying out the wishes of the Iranian Ayatollahs in revenge for the erroneous US downing of an Iranian aircraft.

• There are political reasons why the US had wanted to take the heat off Iran and Syria at the time. The return of US hostages held by Iranian backed groups was still on the agenda at the time.

• A US intelligence team who had been investigating the hostage dispositions in Lebanon were among those on the doomed PA103. Their leader’s bag had been cut open by hand and some of its contents removed before it was returned to the crash site for the Scottish police to find. This interference with the evidence chain was known to the court which placed no emphasis on it.

• The court never ordered the production of the diaries pertaining to a detective involved in the complex forensic investigation into the bombing even though they knew of their existence. These exposed serious backhand dealings and showed that the Maltese witness was interested in the awards being offered by the US ‘Rewards for Justice’ programme provided he gave evidence leading to Mr Al-Megrahi’s conviction.

[A second article in the same newspaper headlined ‘Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi remains a sick man’ reads as follows:]

Dr Swire met with Mr Al-Megrahi in Tripoli following a request by the Libyan man himself.

It was the first time the Scottish doctor has met Mr Al-Megrahi since the Libyan’s release. The two had previously met when the convicted bomber was in custody. Mr Al-Megrahi has kept a very low profile since his release, amid media speculation of his health and whereabouts.

Dr Swire was not expansive about the contents of his one-hour conversation with Mr Al-Megrahi, which he considers confidential, but was quick to quash media claims that the Libyan - who was given three months to live when released from a Scottish prison in August 2009 – was not really a dying man.

“Abdelbaset remains a sick man but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family, especially his wife Aisha, the community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving. This is a message of great cheer for all of us men, many of whom will sooner or later be victims of prostate cancer.”

Dr Swire said he decided to make the trip to Tripoli in solidarity with the man who still stands accused in the eyes of the law of killing the Scotsman’s daughter.

“We met as brother members of the human race and seekers of a common goal: the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice.

“Abdelbaset does not want any further dealings with the media, believing he can do no more now that his appeal has been withdrawn.”

Mr Al-Megrahi maintained his innocence and his wish to see the verdict against him overturned, Dr Swire told The Sunday Times.

“That task now falls upon Scotland, and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.”

Lockerbie victim's dad visits man convicted

[This is the headline over a Deutsche Presse-Agentur news agency report on the website of The Seattle Times. It reads in part:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing "remains a sick man" but was in better shape than expected when the father of one of the victims visited him in Tripoli, Libya.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, was on the Pan Am airliner when it was blown up over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, held a one-hour meeting with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi in Libya on Tuesday, The Sunday Times of Malta reported.

It was the first time that the Scottish doctor had met al-Megrahi since his controversial release from a Scottish prison in August 2009. (...)

Al-Megrahi has kept a low profile since his release, amid media speculation about his health and whereabouts.

Swire, who has always maintained the Libyan was wrongly convicted of the crime that killed 270 people, was quick to quash media claims that the so-called "Lockerbie bomber" was not really a dying man.

"Abdel Baset remains a sick man, but he is in better shape than I had dared to hope. His mind is perfectly clear. I attribute this to the love and care of his family and community, and to some extent also to the excellent medical care he seems to be receiving," Swire, 74, told Malta's main newspaper.

He said he decided to visit Tripoli in solidarity with the Libyan, who has maintained his innocence and wants the verdict against him overturned.

[There is a brief report on the website of The Sunday Times of Malta. A longer report will probably appear there later today. The brief report, headlined "Lockerbie bomber claims he was 'betrayed' by Maltese man" reads in part:]

Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, the Libyan man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and controversially released last year, is claiming that a Maltese witness at his trial “betrayed a fellow human being for money”.

The claim was made to Jim Swire, a Scottish doctor who last week visited Al Megrahi in Tripoli. Dr Swire lost his daughter in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988. (...)

The two men met in Tripoli last Tuesday where they discussed, among other issues, Tony Gauci, the owner of a shop in Sliema who claimed he had identified Mr Al Megrahi as the man who had bought clothes from him that were later found wrapped around the bomb.

His testimony led to the imprisonment of Mr Al-Megrahi, until the Libyan was released a year ago on compassionate grounds after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer.

Asked by The Sunday Times whether the two men spoke about Mr Gauci’s testimony, Dr Swire said: “Yes we did. We felt that if Abdelbaset and I were standing at the gates of heaven, and Mr Gauci applied for entry he would be asked why he had betrayed his brother human being and his only answer would have to be ‘for the money’.”

Mr Al-Megrahi’s defence team recently contended that the Maltese witness was paid “in excess of $2 million”, while his brother was paid “in excess of $1 million” for their cooperation.

Dr Swire said he was convinced of the Libyan’s innocence, saying he was converted by the evidence he heard in the main trial at Camp Zeist.

Dr Swire said Mr Gauci’s evidence was clearly unreliable now that it had emerged (from a policeman’s diary, since made public by Mr Megrahi’s defence team and not seen by the court), that he was enticed with offers of American money to give evidence, which the court was unaware of.

BBC Radio Four's The Report on Megrahi case

The programme was broadcast yesterday evening. It can be listened to here. Perhaps inevitably, there was far too much on the release issue. But some of the concerns about the conviction were given an airing. Regrettably, Frank Duggan, president of the US relatives group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc was allowed to assert unchallenged that eight Scottish judges had accepted the evidence at the trial as justifying Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction. Mr Duggan well knows (as do the BBC programme makers, because I told them) the true position is as follows:

"As far as the outcome of the appeal is concerned, some commentators have confidently opined that, in dismissing Megrahi’s appeal, the Appeal Court endorsed the findings of the trial court. This is not so. The Appeal Court repeatedly stresses that it is not its function to approve or disapprove of the trial court’s findings-in-fact, given that it was not contended on behalf of the appellant that there was insufficient evidence to warrant them or that no reasonable court could have made them. These findings-in-fact accordingly continue, as before the appeal, to have the authority only of the court which, and the three judges who, made them."

US team to discuss Megrahi release

[This is the headline over a report just issued by The Press Association news agency. It reads in part:]

US senators' interest in the Lockerbie bomber's release has "waxed and waned", a spokesman for First Minister Alex Salmond said ahead of a meeting on the issue.

Justice officials from the Scottish Government will hold talks in Edinburgh with representatives of a US Senate committee investigating the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi last year. (...)

The US politicians want to investigate concerns that the bomber's release was linked to an oil deal - a suggestion strongly denied by all parties involved.

A spokesman for Mr Salmond said: "It was the First Minister who revealed to the world that the UK Government and the Libyan Government were planning or negotiating a prisoner transfer agreement clearly with the specific purpose of Al Megrahi being transferred to Libya. We've looked at all the records and asked the senators for them to furnish us with any public comment they issued at that time - there was no public comment.

"Senator Menendez and his colleagues' interest in the matter certainly seems to have waxed and waned. It seemed to be non-existent at the time when it was revealed to the world there was this 'deal in the desert'."

The UK Government has rejected requests to meet with US officials. One is a staff member of committee chairman Sen Menendez and another is an official of the committee.

[The following is an excerpt from a report on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm:]

Neither MacAskill or Salmond are scheduled to meet with the team, representing Senator Robert Menendez. However it has not been revealed which "justice officials" they will meet with, or what role those officials may have played in the release of Megrahi or the aborted appeal process.

US Senators Robert Menendez, Kirstin Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer have so far failed to respond to an invitation to back an international petition calling for a full review of the entire circumstances of the Pan Am 103 event and its judicial aftermath.

[A similar report on the BBC News website can be read here and Newsnet Sotland's treatment can be read here.]

MacAskill set to face Lockerbie FBI chief

This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. Had it been true, it would have been quite a story. The Director of the FBI Robert S Mueller III has form in relation to Lockerbie: see eg here and here and here and here.

What in fact is happening is that Mr MacAskill is to be the opening speaker at a conference in October at which, two days later, an address is to be given by Kathryn Turman, director of victim services at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who played an important role making the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist accessible to relatives of the victims of Pan Am 103.

This is yet another example of the dreadful decline in The Scotsman's standards. As one of the readers who commented on the story says:

"I believe the Scotsman has won the 'Most misleading headline' prize for the 30th month in a row. Just when you think the Scotsman can't sink any lower; it is a dreadful shame that a mighty newspaper has been dragged into the gutter."

Lord MacLean on Lockerbie

[Accompanying its article on the report of the inquiry into the murder of Loyalist Billy Wright by Irish National Liberation Army prisoners at the Maze Prison in 1997, The Scotsman runs a brief profile of the retired judge, Lord MacLean, who chaired the inquiry. It reads in part:]

The retired Scottish judge who chaired the inquiry was one of the judges who convicted Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi of the Lockerbie bombing.

Lord MacLean sat with Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord Abernethy when they found Megrahi guilty of mass murder. [Note by RB: Lord Abernethy was a substitute, who took no part in the decision. He would have had a role to play only if one of the other three died or became incapacitated in the course of the proceedings.]

An Old Fettesian, Lord MacLean, 71, has been a staunch defender of the decision, once saying: "I have no doubt, on the evidence we heard, that the judgments we made, and the verdicts we reached, were correct."

Justice officials to meet US senate team over Lockerbie

[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]

US senate officials investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber are to hold talks with the Scottish government in Edinburgh on Thursday.

The team, representing Senator Robert Menendez, will meet Scottish justice officials. (...)

Opposition members of the Scottish Parliament will also meet with the American delegation.

The investigators are preparing a report for the US senate's foreign relations committee which is due to hold a hearing on Capitol Hill later this month.

It launched an inquiry amid claims - denied by the Scottish and UK governments - that Megrahi's release was linked to an oil deal.

[This report, for some reason best known to the BBC (unlike the report on the BBC News Arabic website) does not mention that the Scottish Government has refused to allow the investigators to interview ministers; and that the UK Government has declined to allow either ministers or civil servants to meet them. The investigators are Andrew Gounardes, legislative aide for investigations to Senator Menendez, and legislative counsel Hal Connolly.]

First Minister's letter to US Senators

[What follows is the text of the First Minister's most recent letter to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand and Schumer.]

Thank you for your letters of 19 and 20 August 2010.

Your letter of 19 August attempts to suggest that there is circumstantial evidence that commercial interests played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi. This seems to be a considerable weakening of your original position, but is still totally wrong. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that links decisions made by the Scottish Government to commercial interests. Indeed, the substantial evidence that does exist shows that the Scottish Government specifically rejected any attempt to bring commercial or business considerations into the decision-making process on compassionate release, and stated that decisions would be based on judicial grounds alone.

I am also concerned that, in your letter of 20 August, you once again quote from letters published by the Scottish Government setting out the representations that were made to us, without drawing attention to the responses which make clear that commercial considerations would play no part in the decision-making process. To then accuse the Scottish Government of selectively publishing correspondence, when it is you who are selectively quoting from material published proactively by the Scottish Government, significantly undermines your credibility.

The evidence of commercial influence that does exist relates to the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) that the UK Government signed with Libya. Indeed, you quote Saif Gaddaffi as publicly commenting that the commercial issues were related to the PTA.

As I highlighted in my letter of 2 August, it was the Scottish Government, on 7 June 2007, which first drew attention to the UK Government's negotiations with the Libyan Government, highlighting our strong opposition to them. I asked you, in my letter of 15 August, for copies of any public comments on this important issue which you may have made at the time, either individually or collectively. It appears that when the Scottish Government was using every means at its disposal to oppose the PTA between the UK and Libya, you were silent.

You refer to extensive correspondence between the Scottish and UK Governments regarding the PTA. Once again, however, you fail to mention that this shows the Scottish Government consistently opposing the signing of any PTA unless it specifically excluded Al-Megrahi. This, and the fact that the application for prisoner transfer was rejected, fatally undermines your line of argument.

You refer to comments that the Scottish Government would have to deal with the consequences of the UK's decision not to exclude Al-Megrahi from the PTA with Libya. This is a statement of fact. The UK Government had gone against our wishes and left the Scottish Government to deal with any application for prisoner transfer that was submitted, a situation that it is clear we were and are very unhappy with. You suggest that it is uncertain how the Scottish Government dealt with those consequences. This is simply not true. The consideration and rejection of the prisoner transfer application are matters of public record and to pretend otherwise, as you attempt to do, appears very contrived.

Your letter of 19 August goes on to conflate the process of application for prisoner transfer with the quite separate process of applying for compassionate release. I have explained these separate processes at some length in our previous correspondence. It is of great concern that, despite these explanations, you seem unable or unwilling to understand the nature of these separate legal processes.

On some of the points of detail you raise, I would note that the only redaction from the letter of 22 June to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the name of the UK Government official to whom it was addressed. Permission to publish this name has been refused by the UK Government and, in any event, has absolutely no bearing on the facts of the matter. In the 16 July 2009 letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the UK Foreign Secretary, the only passage that has been redacted is due to the US Government withholding permission to release material relating to it. Finally, the letter from the Qatari Minister which was attached to correspondence from the Qatari Embassy in London dated 31 July 2009 is available on the Scottish Government website. The letter from Khalid Bin Mohamed al-Attiyah, dated 17 July 2009, was also received direct and therefore appears twice in the correspondence on the website.

Given the consistent and compelling information I have now provided, I would ask you to confirm you accept that:

The Scottish Government had no contact with BP in relation to decisions made about Al-Megrahi; The Scottish Government consistently opposed the signing of a PTA between the UK and Libyan Governments unless Al-Megrahi was excluded; and The Scottish Government made the decision on compassionate release on judicial grounds alone and made this clear to those who made representations to us.

If you are not able to accept these irrefutable and well-evidenced facts, which I have set out clearly in our correspondence and are supported by extensive documentation, it calls into question your ability to conduct any credible and impartial investigation into these matters.

I am aware that staff from Senator Menendez's office have been in contact with my office to try to arrange meetings with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. As I have said previously, the Scottish Government has nothing to hide and nothing to fear from any properly constituted inquiry, but the Scottish Government is rightly accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not to the US Senate. Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, I would be willing to make appropriate officials available to meet staff from your offices should they decide to visit Scotland. The purpose of any such meeting would be to provide whatever further background information may be helpful to your understanding of these matters. Officials would not be giving evidence in any formal context.

There are other points of detail in your 19 August 2010 letter, but none of these raises any new issues of substance or challenge the view that the decisions the Scottish Government made in relation to Al-Megrahi were made with integrity and according to the due process of Scots Law.

I believe that the Scottish Government has given every assistance to you and to the Foreign Relations Committee on this matter and, as noted above, I am content to offer the courtesy of an official level meeting if staff from your offices visit Scotland. However, as your recent letters raise no new issues of substance, I am now drawing a line under this correspondence.

Alex Salmond