Iran Air 655 provided motive for bombing of Pan Am 103 "by people still unknown"

[The theory that MH370 may have been accidentally shot down in US-led military exercises and is now being covered up to prevent a Lockerbie-style retaliation is now being discussed widely in the media. Here is an excerpt from an article by John Chuckman on the OpEdNews website:]

A second mystery around the disappearance of Flight MH370 has largely gone unnoticed: why hasn't the United States been in the forefront of providing information about it? The implications of this question are massive.

America has a fleet of the most sophisticated spy satellites, called "keyhole" satellites, covering the earth's surface daily with imaging systems comparable to those of the Hubble Space Telescope, but instead of data from any of these, we read of data from China and France. One can understand that the CIA does not want others to understand fully the capabilities of its satellites, but surely the lives of more than two hundred people are cause for some information, however indirectly supplied.

Then again, the American military has some of most sophisticated radars on earth, and there is, without a doubt, an installation of the highest capability at the secret base on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. How could there not be? But we have read of no data from them, only from others less capable of telling us what happened.

Could it be that the United States shot down Flight MH370, either accidentally or deliberately, and now wants to keep it secret? (...)

There would be nothing unprecedented in such an act: on at least 3 occasions, regrettably, America's military has shot down civilian airliners, only admitting eventually to the one they could not hide. They are also indirectly responsible for a fourth.

Iran Air Flight 655 was stupidly shot down in 1988 by the USS Vincennes in Iranian waters during the Iraq-Iran War, not only killing 290 people including 66 children, but there was a long period afterwards in which the US admitted no wrong-doing, offered no apology, and no compensation to its victims (only 8 years later was a quiet settlement made).

It was a quite vicious set of circumstances and the injustice of it led unquestionably to the motive for bombing Pan Am Flight 103, killing 259 people and 11 on the ground, later the same year by people still unknown.

The credibility of Western justice is now at stake

Today I stumbled upon a Lockerbie website that I had previously known nothing about. It contains links to some interesting material not readily accessible elsewhere. One of the things it brought back to my attention is a long article entitled Libya, Lockerbie & Lies by Susan Bryce dating from 2001, just after the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. The final sentence reads, “The credibility of Western justice, that burned at the altar of Camp Zeist, is now at stake – not Libya’s innocence.”

Non-Libyan explanation of Lockerbie increasingly mainstream

[What follows is an excerpt from a review published today on the website of The Sydney Morning Herald of Nigel Cawthorne’s book Flight MH370: The Mystery:]

Seventy-one days after Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared, the first book about the disaster will go on sale on Monday with a theory about what might have happened. (...)

Flight MH370: The Mystery, which is made available by NewSouth Books in Sydney, doesn't claim to have any answers but to some extent supports the theory that the aircraft may have been accidentally shot down during a joint Thai-US military exercise in the South China Sea. Searchers were then possibly led in the wrong direction to cover up the mistake, it suggests. (...)

He says this raises the significance that around the time the plane's transponder went off at 01.21, New Zealander Mike McKay, working on an oil rig in the Gulf of Thailand, saw a burning plane. He links that to the joint Thai-US military exercise going on in the South China Sea with personnel from China, Japan, Indonesia and other countries.

''The drill was to involve mock warfare on land, in water and in the air, and would include live-fire exercises,'' he writes.

''Say a participant accidentally shot down Flight MH370. Such things do happen. No one wants another Lockerbie [Pan Am flight 103 by terrorists in 1988 allegedly in retaliation for a US Navy strike on an Iranian commercial jet six months earlier], so those involved would have every reason to keep quiet about it.''

[RB: It is not clear whether the piece in square brackets in the last paragraph represents the view of the author or of the reviewer about what led to Lockerbie. But in any case it is an indication of just how mainstream the non-Libyan explanation is becoming (except, of course, in Scottish, UK and US official circles).]

Prime Minister visits Lockerbie memorial

David Cameron visited the Lockerbie memorial yesterday during his visit to Scotland. A photograph and a prime ministerial tweet can be seen here.

Fire brigade response to Lockerbie disaster

An interesting timeline of fire brigade activity on 21 and 22 December 1988 during the first hours of the Lockerbie disaster can be found here on the Glasgow Fire Journal website.

Reform that would have helped in review of "deeply dodgy" Megrahi conviction "conveniently parked"

[The current edition of Private Eye (issue 1366) returns to the Lockerbie affair in its In The Back section.  The relevant article reads as follows:]

The Scottish government has quietly shelved for at least a year its controversial Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, which would have abolished the centuries-old principle of corroboration, requiring two independent pieces of evidence to bring a case to trial.

The move neatly heads off an escalating row with the Bill’s growing body of opponents until after September’s independence referendum. But is also rather conveniently parks another reform, which would have made it easier to get the deeply dodgy conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing, back before the appeal court – just as relatives of some of the victims were about to launch an unprecedented legal action to do just that.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the 270 who died in the attack, is leading 25 relatives of the Lockerbie victims who are about to make a new a new application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to send Megrahi’s case back to the court of appeal – for a third time. The families believe proving Megrahi’s innocence, may be the only way they will get nearer the truth behind what happened to their loved ones.

The SNP Government has repeatedly refused mounting calls for an inquiry in to the festering scandal, claiming, absurdly, that the appeal court is the only appropriate forum for airing the issues. Yet it has quietly stacked the cards against one.

Eye readers will know that the SSCRC had already found strong grounds for believing there had been a miscarriage of justice, but Megrahi who had terminal cancer abandoned his second appeal five years ago in order to return to Libya to be with his family. Since then there has been fresh scientific evidence relating to the bombing device which points to his innocence. There has also been mounting concern about the amount of material also suggesting he was not the bomber, which had been withheld from Megrahi’s 2001 trial and his first appeal the following year, by Scotland’s prosecuting authority, the Crown Office now headed by the country’s chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC.

The new application by the families, which will focus on the new evidence added to the six grounds on which the SCCRC based its previous referral in 2007 including non-disclosure of evidence, will be breaking new territory. First they will have to prove they have a ‘legitimate interest’ in pursuing an appeal on behalf of Megrahi – a task made easier by the fact that Megrahi’s family support the move. They will then have to prove the case is the ‘public interest’ – a far more straightforward argument. But thanks to an arcane piece of legislation, the biggest hurdle facing the families is that before deciding whether to hear a case referred to it by the SSCRC, the appeal court must have regard to ‘the need for finality and certainty in the determination of criminal proceedings’.

"Finality and certainty" isn't defined in the legislation, but it means the court has to decide whether the threat of endless appeals and challenges, outweighs SCCRC concern that there may have been an injustice. With one first failed appeal and the second abandoned, the court might simply say ‘enough is enough’ – especially when Megrahi himself is dead.

That ‘finality’ test was to have been abolished in the new Criminal Justice Bill – but unfortunately for the Lockerbie families it now remains the law.

Megrahi infinitely more innocent than those who contrived, supplied and employed evidence that convicted him

[A letter from Neil Sinclair in today’s edition of The Scotsman contains the following:]

Alex Salmond refuses to apologise over his remarks praising Putin. Alex Salmond refused to apologise over the premature release of the Lockerbie bomber despite protests from American relatives. And Mr Salmond refused to apologise over the promotion of Bill Walker as an SNP MSP despite the SNP being forewarned of his propensity. Alex Salmond does not “do apologies”.

[The first online comment following the letter reads as follows:]

What are being listed by Neil Sinclair are allegations of mistakes and chiefly allegations/accusations from those who have shown themselves keener to malign than to explain. Mr Putin is every bit as admirable as Mr Obama and has probably merited his presidency more than his US counterpart. The Ukraine is far from a cut-and-dried issue. Western politicians are all toeing a line that tolerates violence and ignores violence as befits an agenda that has little to do with any kind of admirable code of conduct. The same applies to the release of al-Megrahi who on the evidence that convicted him is infinitely more innocent than those who contrived and supplied and employed said evidence. As for apologies over Bill Walker, if any is due there then probably every party leader would be obliged to make numerous apologies.

JFM's allegations of criminal misconduct: a "progress" report

[The two documents reproduced below are (1) a history of the official response to Justice for Megrahi’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial; and (2) an account of a meeting held on 2 April between representatives of Justice for Megrahi and Police Scotland.]

1.  Chronology of events, from 13th September 2012 to 20th February 2014, covering the police investigation of the Justice for Megrahi allegations levelled at Crown, police and forensic officials

1. On 13 September 2012, JFM submitted a private and confidential letter to Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill in which we lodged 6 outline allegations against Crown, police and forensic officials involved in the Lockerbie investigation and the Zeist trial of Mr al-Megrahi for the downing of Pan Am 103. We added that he give ‘serious thought to the independence of any investigating authority that’ he appoint, and that any such authority should be someone from ‘outwith Scotland who [had] no previous direct or indirect association with Lockerbie or its ramifications’. Furthermore, we stated that a document detailing the evidence to support our allegations would be supplied to whomsoever was appointed as investigator.

2. On 25 September 2012, before any reply had been forthcoming from the Justice Directorate to our private and confidential letter to Mr MacAskill, The Scotsman newspaper published a response from the Crown Office in which we were pilloried for having made “defamatory and entirely unfounded … deliberately false and misleading allegations” and suggested that we had accused “police officers [and] officials [of fabricating] evidence”. At no time have we accused anyone involved in the Lockerbie investigation or any subsequent legal process of fabricating any evidence.

3. On 8 October 2012, Mr Neil Rennick, Deputy Director of the Criminal Law and Licensing Division of the Justice Directorate, responded to our letter on behalf of Mr MacAskill. This response afforded us one choice, namely: to submit our allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary and, by dint of that, to COPFS for investigation. In other words, to two of the bodies that our allegations were being levelled against.

4. On 9 November 2012, we handed over our detailed evidence for the, by then 8, allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary for the attention of Chief Constable Patrick Shearer, SIO for the case.

5. Accompanying a letter dated 19 March 2013, an updated and expanded addendum to the allegations, which covered luggage positioning in container AVE4041, was received by Mr Shearer.

6. On 21 December 2012, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland gave an interview with Mr Magnus Linklater in The Times (Scotland edition) in which he reiterated the COPFS criticisms of JFM published in The Scotsman (25 September 2012) adding that we had levelled criminal accusations against the Judges and/or the Lord Advocate involved in the Zeist process. It is plain from both our submission to Mr MacAskill and our subsequent detailed evidence that we had done no such thing.

7. It took until 16th April 2013, 5 months later, before we were invited to a preliminary meeting with Mr Shearer (DCC of Police Scotland by then). This meeting went no further than outlining the basic procedures that would be involved in the course of the investigation, ie: reading the evidence presented by JFM, information gathering, interviews etc. DCC Shearer also stated that we would not be privy to any report submitted by him to COPFS. For ourselves, we made it clear that whilst we would cooperate at all times with his investigation, we would be doing so under protest since we did not feel that the Police Scotland could be seen as a disinterested and independent authority in this matter. Moreover, we requested that we be supplied with regular updates on the progress of the investigation.

8. It took a further 4 months, with no intervening updates, before we received a second invitation to attend Cornwall Mount from DCC Shearer. The purpose on this occasion was to interview those of our membership who spoke to the individual allegations. These interviews were conducted on 16 and 19 August 2013. On 16 August, DCC Shearer told us that having identified a possible conflict between our allegations 5, 6 and 7 and the Crown's 'live and on-going' investigation, he had consulted the Crown Office on the matter and received authorisation to drop them from our investigation for the time being. When we asked him what the apparent conflict was, he refused to provide this information. He was then asked who the SIO for the Crown's investigation was: he also refused to provide an answer to this question. JFM provided him with answers to the questions he posed regarding the evidence for our other 5 allegations.

9. In a letter to the Justice Committee of the Scottish Parliament, dated 24 September 2013, for a Justice Committee being convened to consider JFM Petition PE1370 held on the same date, DCC Shearer stated that he was “confident that the deferment [of JFM allegations 5, 6 and 7] [would] only be a matter of weeks as [he then understood] that the point of conflict with the live investigation [would] then be resolved”. 

10. In early October 2013, DCC Shearer retired from Police Scotland.

11. On 4 November 2013, DCC Richardson informed the Justice Committee: “I have to advise you that the Senior Investigating Officer has confirmed to me that the conflict between the two investigations still exists and whilst no definite date can be provided when that situation will change, it is assessed as still being in weeks rather than months. The only undertaking that I can provide at this time therefore is to update you accordingly as and when that conflict has been resolved.”

12. From the date of Mr Shearer’s retirement until 14 January 2014, when JFM telephoned Chief Inspector Sturgeon of the Professional Standards Department of Police Scotland to ascertain who had been appointed as Mr Shearer’s replacement as SIO, we received no updates from Police Scotland. At the time of the phone call, Mr Sturgeon was unable to confirm who had been appointed and that a meeting was due to take place the following day, 15 January, to discuss such an appointment.

13. On 31 January, Chief Inspector Sturgeon received a ninth allegation and an addendum for allegation 8.

14. On 17 February 2014, JFM received notification from Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone that he had been appointed SIO of the JFM allegations. This he also submitted to the Justice Committee for the consideration of PE1370 to be held the following day, 18 January 2014. In his communication, he stated: “With regards to your [JFM’s] question as to whether there has been any change in relation to allegations 5, 6 and 7, I can advise that recent developments in the live investigation have resulted in the conflict previously highlighted by former Deputy Chief Constable Shearer remaining unresolved for longer than expected. It is currently anticipated the conflict will be resolved before the end of March.” Detective Superintendent Johnstone was also unable to supply any information regarding how many officers were currently working on the case or what stage the investigation was at. Nor was he confident of being able to provide us with definitive updates on these questions in the near future since these matters were under review.

15. In a letter to the Justice Committee from Chief Constable of Police Scotland Sir Stephen House dated 20 February 2014, Sir Stephen stressed that the current estimate for a resolution of the conflict between allegations 5, 6 and 7 and the live investigation was “still an estimate based on current information and may be impacted on depending on what further developments emerge in the case.” He also stated that, in relation to how many officers [had] been working on the allegations since Mr Shearer retired “the reality is that no further investigation could take place because of the conflict with the live investigation.”

2.  Tulliallan meeting between JFM representatives and Police Scotland.

In September 2012 JFM made eight criminal allegations to Dumfries and Galloway Police and on 1 April 2013 Police Scotland took over responsibility for their investigation. In January 2014 they were in receipt of a ninth allegation.

At various times over the 18 month period since the original report JFM has expressed dissatisfaction at the apparent lack of progress by the police in carrying out the investigation and the lack of feedback from them.

Police explanation for the delay indicated that certain of the allegations were in ‘conflict’ with an ongoing Crown Office/Police enquiry seeking evidence against Abdelbaset al Megrahi and possible others in relation to the downing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie. Unfulfilled promises that these difficulties would shortly be resolved were made at various times to JFM and the Justice Committee at the Scottish Parliament in relation to their ongoing consideration of a JFM petition for a public Lockerbie inquiry.

A meeting to examine JFM’s concerns and facilitate better liaison was held at Tulliallan Police College on 2 April 2014 between a JFM Liaison Group consisting of Len Murray, James Robertson and Iain McKie and Police Scotland Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone and Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone.

In a full and frank discussion JFM expressed concern at the lack of progress of the investigation into their allegations and stated that they had no faith in the Crown Office to ensure an open and effective investigation. If mutual confidence was to be restored and maintained then there should be the opportunity for regular liaison. JFM undertook to be available as required to assist the ongoing investigation.

Police Scotland underlined the Chief Constable’s commitment to the investigation. Although there had been a hiatus in the enquiry they had taken the decision to establish major incident procedures with immediate effect. An enquiry team of selected officers is being appointed under Detective Superintendent Johnstone, whose full-time remit and responsibility is now the investigation into the allegations. Procedures, independent of the police, are in place to monitor, advise and validate procedures as the investigation proceeds. Close liaison would be maintained with the ongoing Crown Office/Police murder enquiry in relation to the downing of Pan Am 103 and it was anticipated that this co-ordination would increase. While the police would ultimately report to them, the Crown Office was neither party to nor being kept informed about the progress of the investigations which would be conducted robustly, in good faith and in an open and accountable way.

The JFM Liaison Group agreed to a Police Scotland proposal for a series of regular meetings where there would be an opportunity to meet and review. While offering their full co-operation JFM made it clear that as an organisation with a specific aim (ie ‘justice for Megrahi’) it reserved the right to challenge the police if it deemed this ongoing liaison to be obstructive rather than constructive, and that given the length of time that had already passed further unexplained or unreasonable delays in the investigation would not be acceptable.

The Liaison Group will provide updates for members as and when available.

"Our justice system is not in safe hands"

[Today’s edition of The Herald carries an editorial which is highly critical of the performance of the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill.  It reads in part:]

The Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, has few friends in the legal profession right now, not least because of his determination to abolish the centuries-old requirement of corroboration in rape cases. [RB: The proposal is to abolish the requirement of corroboration in all criminal cases, not just rape cases. The debate has been bedevilled by the concentration of the media and others on sexual offences.]

Now MSPs on the influential Holyrood Justice Committee have poured scorn on his handling of the merger of Scottish police forces. (...)

There is every indication that the Scottish Government has been seeking to sweep the problems of Police Scotland under the carpet so that they do not interfere with the referendum campaign.

However, the affair raises more troubling questions still about the handling of the justice brief by Mr MacAskill. His eye has not been on the ball. He is too keen on passionately promoting crowd-pleasing measures like the abolition of corroboration, which many lawyers and human rights campaigners fear could lead to miscarriages of justice. Mr MacAskill finally bowed to pressure last month and agreed a one-year review, which many hope will see corroboration reprieved. But even criticism from within his own party ranks has not shaken the Justice Secretary's dogmatic belief in this measure. (...)

Our justice system is not in safe hands. Mr MacAskill's headstrong and sometimes belligerent approach, most notably in his refusal to heed advice in the Lockerbie affair, is damaging the credibility of Scottish law. It is time that he moved on to another, less high profile, Cabinet position.

[I am baffled by the reference to Kenny MacAskill’s refusal to heed advice in the Lockerbie affair. If it is his release of Abdelbaset Megrahi that is being alluded to, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr MacAskill refused to heed the advice of those whom it was his legal duty to consult.  In other aspects of the Lockerbie affair (eg the refusal to institute an independent inquiry, the refusal to make arrangements for the Justice for Megrahi allegations of criminality in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial to be investigated otherwise that by the very police service that, amongst others, was being accused) the just criticism of Kenny MacAskill is that he too slavishly followed advice (from the Crown Office -- its own personnel amongst those accused of criminality -- and from his departmental civil servants).]

Let Lockerbie appeal go ahead

[This is the heading over a letter from Justice for Megrahi stalwart Mrs Jo Greenhorn published in today’s edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by comments made by the chief executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission (SCCRC), Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.

Why? Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans have denied us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie?

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to address the fact that Megrahi dropped his last appeal. I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that, for it has been claimed the Scottish authorities told the Libyan authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. He was a dying man. Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it. Dr Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal, is he ignorant of the situation in Libya? Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in? Is he aware of their financial position? So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal?

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as chief executive of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference", is justice. That should answer another question he posed, as to whether it was in the interests of justice to allow this appeal. The SCCRC had already found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since. 

[The above is the published version of the letter.  As submitted it read as follows:]

I hope I am not alone in feeling disturbed by public comments made by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Criminal Case Review Commission, Gerald Sinclair, on the subject of a new appeal to be brought against the conviction of Abdel Basset Al Megrahi for the Lockerbie atrocity. (...)   Mr Sinclair's comments send out a message that suggests there is a long road ahead.  Why?  Has the road, for Dr Swire and other concerned parties, not been long enough already while political and judicial shenanigans denied all of us answers about that conviction and the truth behind Lockerbie.

Mr Sinclair says the SCCRC will need to "address" the fact that Megahi dropped his last appeal.  I wonder who he will ask about the reasons behind that for it has been claimed the Scottish Authorities told the Libyan Authorities that if he didn't drop it he wouldn't be released. (This advice was given despite the fact that an existing appeal can continue even when a person has been released on compassionate grounds.  Why did the Scottish Authorities do that?)  He was a dying man.  Did he have a choice?

As to whether Dr Swire's right to lead this appeal with other relatives of the dead is "legitimate" I'm certain it is and I'm sorry Mr Sinclair questions it.   Jim Swire's courage in going after justice when so much evidence showed we had convicted the wrong man is to be admired.   I wonder what age Mr Sinclair is.   Jim Swire was in his early fifties when this terrible thing happened.   He has spent his life since going after justice and the truth.   Scots Law didn't deliver either.   It allowed itself to be caught up in dirty, filthy politics so that we really didn't get the truth about Lockerbie, or justice.  Scotland should be ashamed of that.   

As for Mr Sinclair's comments about Megrahi's family not having brought a new appeal is he ignorant of the situation in Libya?   Is he unaware of the position the Megrahi family were in?  Is he aware of their financial position?  So why judge them for not bringing a new appeal? 

What Mr Sinclair should focus on, as CE of an organisation which, we are told, reviews cases "without political or judicial interference" is justice.  That should answer another question he posed as to whether it was "in the interests of justice" to allow this appeal.  Why would it not be?  The SCCRC already had found six grounds to question the conviction in 2007 and more evidence has emerged since.  Why would Mr Sinclair want the SCCRC to kill this new appeal? Why would he want to play down the significance of this new appeal and any hopes of taking it forward?   I think he should explain himself and soon.  The SCCRC, we are told, functions "without political or judicial interference". Maybe Mr Sinclair should therefore drop the politics. The dead at Lockerbie deserve better.

SCCRC review into Megrahi conviction

[This is the heading of a motion lodged in the Scottish Parliament today by John Finnie MSP. It reads as follows:]

Motion S4M-09989: John Finnie, Highlands and Islands, Independent, Date Lodged: 08/05/2014

That the Parliament welcomes the announcement that a new application will be made to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) by 25 relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims for a review of the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi; understands that the application will focus on new evidence found since the original conviction and the six grounds that the SCCRC itself identified in 2007 as possible miscarriages of justice; understands that the application, which has had the approval of the family of Mr Megrahi, was written by Professor Robert Black, and believes that, for many, the conviction of Mr Megrahi remains deeply unsound and that this new review will allow all the evidence to be heard.

For the sake of the families, appeal over Megrahi's conviction should be expedited

[This is the heading over a letter from Iain A D Mann published in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

It is good that a group of British relatives of 25 victims of the Lockerbie disaster, led by Dr Jim Swire, have decided to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review [Commission] (SCCR[C]) to instigate a further appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am Fight 103 ("Families in bid to overturn Megrahi conviction", The Herald, May 7).

After more than 25 years, it is high time a court was presented with all the relevant evidence.

The immediate response of the Crown Office was disappointing but entirely predictable. "We will vigorously defend the original trial verdict" shows it seems still to be more concerned with protecting the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system than in making sure that justice was done.

It is also disappointing that the Justice Minister and Scottish Government continue to take the same line. It is now clear that there are many justifiable doubts about the safety of the original verdict of the Camp Zeist trial. Surely it is essential that all the relevant evidence is available for consider­ation and challenge in a court of law?

In its comprehensive report some years ago the SCCR[C] identified no fewer than six possible reasons why there could have been a miscarriage of justice in the original verdict.

The trial judges were not aware that some vital evidence known to the prosecution was withheld from Megrahi's defence team, or that the British and American Secret Services had refused to release important documents.

They did not know that the CIA had promised the principal witness $2m and a new life in Australia if he identified Megrahi as a casual visitor to his Malta shop several years earlier, and that he was shown photographs of Megrahi before identifying him in court.

The judges were not told that the tiny piece of electronic detonator claimed to be part of the explosive device was found by an American secret service agent in a field near Lockerbie a full six months after the area had already been exhaustively searched, and that there are some serious doubts about its authen­ticity. And they were not told that on the night before Pan Am 103 took off on its tragic flight, there had been an unexplained break-in at the Heathrow onward baggage terminal which for some reason was not made public at the time.

While each of these pieces of information might not seem very significant in itself, together they would surely have been enough to establish at least a reasonable doubt in the minds of the three judges.

The sooner all this evidence is formally presented in an appeal court, the sooner the grieving families of those who lost their lives in this appalling act of mass murder can finally know the truth about who was or was not responsible.