Tony Blair's "deal in the desert" recalled in editorial in The Scotsman

[What follows is the text of an editorial in today’s edition of The Scotsman:]

The devolution settlement put together by Donald Dewar in a few short months after Labour’s general election victory in 1997 contained a number of potentially problematic ragged edges.

In health, for example, not everything was devolved to Edinburgh. A range of issues such as abortion, embryology and genetics were judged to be too morally sensitive. These were reserved to Westminster.

In criminal justice too, there were exceptions to the wholesale devolution of criminal justice, including drugs, firearms and terrorism legislation.

This last one in particular has posed a challenge to relations between the Holyrood and Westminster administrations, especially in the years since 9/11, when a new and intense focus was brought to ‘the war on terror’.

The problem is that the line between anti-terrorist measures and domestic law enforcement is by no means clear-cut in every instance.

Increasingly, the fight against terror atrocities has involved impinging on the civil liberties of the entire population, with implications for wide areas of how the law operates on a day-to-day basis. The distinction between anti-terror law enforcement and normal criminal law enforcement has sometimes become difficult to ascertain.

This is more than of technical legal importance. In a democracy, it matters where accountability lies. Where there is confusion about which legislature is responsible for such important matters, political and public scrutiny can become lax. Clarity is required if we are to know which ministers to hold to account.

Which is why Alex Salmond is right to register his displeasure as First Minister at a lack – if indeed there has been a lack – of discussion and consultation between the Home Office and the Scottish Government on proposed new anti-terror measures to combat British-born jihadists returning home from Syria and Iraq.

It is imperative that any such measures are fully discussed with the authorities that would be charged with implementing and enforcing them. That would include Police Scotland, the Crown Office and cabinet secretary for justice Kenny MacAskill.

We have been here before. In 2007 the SNP and Scottish Labour were united in condemnation of Tony Blair’s attempt to do a diplomatic deal with Colonel Gaddafi that included the early release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish jail.

On that occasion Mr Salmond and his predecessor Jack McConnell stood shoulder to shoulder and said Mr Blair had no constitutional right to do any such thing.

Of course, Mr Salmond may currently be motivated at least in part by a desire to make a point about Westminster’s attitude to Scotland, to boost the campaign for independence.

That having been said, there is an important point of principle here, and Westminster politicians would do well to heed it.

[An account of Tony Blair’s “deal in the desert” can be read here.]

Progress report on investigation into JFM's criminality allegations

[What follows is a summary of a meeting held on 7 July 2014 between representatives of Justice for Megrahi and members of the Police Scotland team investigating JFM’s allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial. It has only just become available for publication:]

Present:

Justice for Megrahi (JFM):  Iain McKie; Len Murray.

Police Scotland: Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone; Detective Superintendent Stuart Johnstone; Detective Inspector Scott Cunningham.

Apologies: James Robertson (JFM)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is second meeting held to facilitate liaison between Police Scotland and JFM in respect of the ongoing investigation by Police Scotland into JFM’s complaint of 9 criminal allegations made in September 2012.

DCC Livingstone introduced the meeting and reiterated the importance of this forum. It was appropriate and necessary for Police Scotland and JFM to have full and frank discussion on related matters and also to provide an update in relation to the 9 criminal allegations. He highlighted this was a unique arrangement which was uncharted and untested.  

DCC Livingstone confirmed that steady progress was being made into investigating  the 9 allegations, with independent legal advice and scrutiny in place to fully support Police Scotland in terms of the complexities of the matters under investigation, and to ensure absolute transparency.

He also confirmed that this and further updates to JFM would be as informative as possible, but highlighted it was not appropriate to provide partial updates, to avoid reporting back on an incomplete basis, particularly where emerging findings have not first been subject to  legal scrutiny and consideration. Ultimately, once all the investigations are completed in relation to all of the allegations then the conclusion and findings will be provided to JFM.

DCC Livingstone confirmed Police Scotland had made a visible and active commitment to resource this as a major investigation, and one that was now well under way with a group of specially trained and experienced resources working to the MIRSAP principles with HOLMES capacity.  

D/Supt Johnstone provided reassurance that the work completed by Mr Patrick Shearer would be a useful foundation to proceed and emphasised the investigative strategy and processes would withstand robust and intense scrutiny.  

DCC Livingstone confirmed that appropriate security measures were in place by way of a confidentiality agreement with resources and alarmed and monitored premises.

JFM were extremely satisfied that they felt they were now being listened to and that progress was being made by Police Scotland, particularly as there was a clear structure, process and plan in place.  JFM reiterated that they had trust in the Police to fully investigate the complaints.  

D/Supt Johnstone provided a comprehensive update on each strand of the investigation so far, and focussed on the processes and procedures adopted. Significant progress has been made with the enquiry moving apace through detailed research and analysis, with the 9 criminal allegations had been separated into 5 categories as part of the overarching investigative strategy.

D/Supt Johnstone explained that the process adopted ensured a full and forensic examination of all relevant material was being undertaken and considered in respect of relevant legislation and guidance, and also in the context of evidence presented by experts and in academic reports. This approach is essential to satisfy the necessary level of scrutiny required in terms of the specific elements of this allegation.

Some categories will take considerable time due to a number of documents being in paper format and not on any electronic database.

A senior analyst has been appointed to critically analyse and examine all relevant material in what can only be described as a particularly complex area of work. JFM acknowledged the scale of the complexities of the different aspects of the enquiry, and reinforced their commitment to cooperate fully and share, where appropriate, experience and knowledge. This offer is welcomed by Police Scotland.

Brief discussion followed between both parties in acknowledgement of the recent submission of a fresh appeal to the SCCRC.

JFM re-iterated their continuing lack of trust in the Crown Office. DCC Livingstone confirmed the Crown Office had primacy over the live investigation to provide the appropriate direction as deemed necessary. However, it was highlighted that although the findings of the JFM investigation would be initially reported to the DCC Crime, with further independent legal scrutiny, ultimately these could be reported to Crown Office.  

It was stressed by Police Scotland that there was complete transparency and independence in respect of the investigative work being progressed, which was fully acknowledged and complimented by JFM.

JFM confirmed the three aforementioned meeting representatives present at the meeting on 2nd April 2014 will provide the role of ‘JFM Liaison Group’ charged with responsibility for maintaining close police links and liaison.

Agreed by Police Scotland and JFM that they would mutually brief each other where they identified any speculative information or circulations elsewhere in respect of the investigation or the ongoing liaison  between JFM and the police.

DCC Livingstone commented on the latest update provided to the Justice Committee by both parties, and the decision which confirmed the petition remained live and that the Justice Committee would maintain a watching brief.

In conclusion, JFM Liaison Group stated they were totally satisfied with the updates on progress so far, and agreed with the process to hold further meetings every 2 – 3 months, or as appropriate, and that a record of discussions is maintained and circulated to the relevant parties.

Both parties agreed that the discussions had been open, frank and extremely useful, and gave a commitment to build on this positive relationship.

Timer fragment "has emerged as a probable fake"

[On this date seven years ago, the first of the British media picked up the story of Ulrich Lumpert’s affidavit stating that the evidence that he had given at Camp Zeist about the MST-13 timer fragment had been false. The report in The Observer of 2 September 2007, as reproduced on this blog, reads as follows:]

The key piece of material evidence used by prosecutors to implicate Libya in the Lockerbie bombing has emerged as a probable fake.

Nearly two decades after Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Scotland on 21 December, 1988, allegations of international political intrigue and shoddy investigative work are being levelled at the British government, the FBI and the Scottish police as one of the crucial witnesses, Swiss engineer Ulrich Lumpert, has apparently confessed that he lied about the origins of a crucial 'timer' - evidence that helped tie the man convicted of the bombing to the crime. 

The disaster killed 270 people when the London to New York Boeing 747 exploded in mid-air. Britain and the US blamed Libya, saying that its leader, Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, wanted revenge for the US bombing of Tripoli in 1986. At a trial in the Netherlands in 2001, former Libyan agent Abdulbaset al-Megrahi was jailed for life. 

He is currently serving his sentence in Greenock prison, but later this month the Scottish Court of Appeal is expected to hear Megrahi's case, after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled in June that there was enough evidence to suggest a miscarriage of justice. Lumpert's confession, which was given to police in his home city of Zurich last week, will strengthen Megrahi's appeal. 

The Zurich-based Swiss businessman Edwin Bollier, who has spent nearly two decades trying to clear his company's name, is as eager for the appeal as is Megrahi. Bollier's now bankrupt company, Mebo, manufactured the timer switch that prosecutors used to implicate Libya after they said that fragments of it had been found on a Scottish hillside. 

Bollier, now 70, admits having done business with Libya. 'Two years before Lockerbie, we sold 20 MST-13 timers to the Libyan military. FBI agents and the Scottish investigators said one of those timers had been used to detonate the bomb. We were shown a fuzzy photograph and I confirmed the fragments looked as though they came from one of our timers.' 

However, Bollier was uneasy with the photograph he had been shown and asked to see the fragments. He was finally given permission in 1998 and travelled to Dumfries to see the evidence. 

'I was shown fragments of a brown circuit board which matched our prototype. But when the MST-13 went into production, the timers contained green boards. I knew that the timers sold to Libya had green boards. I told the investigators this.' 

Back in Switzerland, Bollier's company was in effect bankrupt, having faced a lawsuit from Pan Am and having lost major clients, such as the German federal police to which Mebo supplied communications equipment. 

In 2001, Bollier spent five days in the witness box at the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. 'I was a defence witness, but the trial was so skewed to prove Libyan involvement that the details of what I had to say was ignored. A photograph of the fragments was produced in court and I asked to see the pieces again. When they were brought to me, they were practically carbonised. They had been tampered with since I had seen them in Dumfries.' 

Few people apart from conspiracy theorists and investigative journalists working on the case were prepared to believe Bollier until the end of last month, when Lumpert, one of his former employees, walked into a Zurich police station and asked to swear an affidavit before a notary.

[The Lumpert affidavit saga can be followed on this blog by clicking here. 

We now also know, of course, that the fragment of circuit board produced at the Lockerbie trial did not come from a MEBO MST-13 timer: its tracking coating was pure tin, whereas the timers supplied by MEBO to Libya all had a tracking coating of a lead/tin alloy, as confirmed by the manufacturer, Thüring. Read more here.]

Filmmaker and pilot takes a close-up view of Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

A novel about the ­Lockerbie bombing has been published by a film-maker and director who has worked on the hit television drama Hamish Macbeth.

Paddy Carpenter, a first assistant director on films and TV series who has worked with actors such as Omar Sharif, wrote the 500-page book over the past two years after becoming fascinated with the atrocity while filming in Scotland.

Unsafe: The Script of One-Zero-Three tells the story of screenwriter Ray Scriver and his efforts to get his work taken up by Hollywood.

Mr Carpenter, who has also worked on the TV ­detective series Minder, said the novel explores both the downing of Pan Am 103 and the politics of the film industry.

It is set in a number of locations including New Zealand and Scotland.

The qualified pilot, who lives in Gloucestershire, said: "Lockerbie is obviously a very dark subject, but basing the novel in the film industry allowed me to introduce an element of light into the plot.

"There are lots of twists and turns and suprises in the story. It moves about quite a lot to keep interest. There is a lot of foreboding in it, not just about the bombing, but about what is going to happen to Ray and his script."

All 243 passengers and 11 crew died when Pan Am 103 was blown up over ­Lockerbie on 21 December 1988. Eleven people on the ground were also killed. It remains the biggest terrorist attack in Britain.

Abdelbaset al Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, was convicted of the bombing at a special court in The Netherlands in 2001.

But new theories have arisen over who was responsible. In March this year ex Iranian spy Abolghassem Mesbahi claimed the attack was ordered by Iran in revenge for the accidental downing of an Iranian commercial jet by the US Navy in 1988.

It was carried out by ­Palestinian terrorists based in Syria, he said, and not on the orders of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

[The blurb for the novel on Amazon.co.uk reads in part:]

English screenwriter Ray Scriver's latest script lifts the lid on the real guilt behind the Lockerbie bombing, so will find powerful opponents. When his film, One-Zero-Three, moves nearer to production, and knowledge of his explosive conclusions can no longer be contained, his life begins to feel increasingly precarious. Just as with the Lockerbie flight itself, its investigation, evidence at the trial, the verdict and the whole public perception of the case, Scriver wonders if he too is now unsafe. A novel set in the larger than life world of film-making, Unsafe – The Script of One-Zero-Three is centred around a screenplay which aims to stir the muddy waters of a real terrorist plot, the actual outrage above Scotland and a cynical 25 year cover-up by agencies and governments. So the book is also a fascinating, no-stone-unturned, true crime reinvestigation of the UK's largest ever mass-murder and its aftermath.

Desire to avoid having to answer miscarriage of justice question

What follows is an item posted on this blog on this date five years ago:

Compassion, conviction and lingering doubt

[This is the headline over a column in today's edition of The Guardian by lawyer, legal commentator, broadcaster and columnist, Marcel Berlins. It reads as follows.]

What if Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was innocent of the Lockerbie bombing? The furore over his release has concentrated on two issues: whether or not he deserved to be freed on compassionate grounds – the reason given by the Scottish justice secretary – and whether, behind the scenes, lurked the real motive for granting his freedom, which was all about oil and Britain's trading relationship with Libya.

Megrahi's return to Libya seemed conveniently to have sidelined another potentially embarrassing question: was he the victim of a miscarriage of justice? Was the decision to free him at least partly based on the Scottish desire to avoid having that question answered? Of course, no one connected with the decision, whether in Scotland, Whitehall or Downing Street, could admit, or even hint, that guilt or innocence was a factor. Officially, he was a properly convicted prisoner, no question.

It is not just Megrahi himself insisting on his innocence. For many years, the case has induced unease in the Scottish legal world. Evidence has emerged that appears to cast some doubt on the verdict. No one is saying the material absolutely proves Megrahi's innocence, but it has been enough to raise the possibility of wrongful conviction.

Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, who led the campaign of bereaved British relatives to discover the truth about the tragedy, now believes that an injustice occurred – so do many families of British victims (though this doubt is not shared by families on the American side).

Robert Black QC, one of Scotland's most eminent advocates, who has studied the case, is of the same view. More importantly, in 2007, the independent Scottish criminal cases review commission (SCCRC) referred the Megrahi case to the Scottish appeal court, finding sufficient grounds to suggest a miscarriage. The court would not have been obliged to grant the appeal, but it has usually done so on previous SCCRC referrals. The court was due to hear the appeal later this year, but Megrahi formally withdrew it during the flurry of activity leading to his release.

His lawyer has made it clear that he did so because it was felt that continuing the appeal – which would have gone on after his death – might have prejudiced his chances of being sent home. In the last few days Megrahi himself has reiterated his claim to innocence.

If he was wrongly convicted, all sorts of new questions arise, not least who was the real bomber and whether Libya was the instigator of the attack. It is probably too late to uncover the whole truth, but should we not try? If he didn't do it, there would at least be a sort of vindication of the decision to release him, even if for the wrong reasons.

Is there any way still open to consider the evidence which might have overturned Megrahi's conviction? His Scottish lawyer says he will make the dossier public. But who would evaluate it? It would not be satisfactory to leave matters in uncertainty. There is a strong case for an independent inquiry.

Megrahi's release and the "deal in the desert"

Five years ago, the media furore over the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi was showing no sign of dying down. Here are excerpts from an item -- one of several -- published on this blog on 30 August 2009:

Jack Straw, the UK Justice Secretary, has described as "absurd" suggestions that trade deals had anything to do with the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing. (...)

His comments were made as the father of one of the victims of the bombing of Pan Am 103 said it was time "to stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi’s release" and Nelson Mandela sent a letter of support to the Scottish Government. (...)

Mr Straw said: "The implication that, somehow or other, we have done some back-door deal in order to release Mr Megrahi is simply nonsense.

"What makes this whole debate absurd now is that Mr Megrahi was not released under the prisoner transfer agreement."

Mr Straw admitted that in return for Libya abandoning its nuclear weapons programme there were moves to "establish wider relations including trade", but added: "the suggestion that at any stage there was some kind of back-door deal done over Mr Megrahi’s transfer because of trade is simply untrue". (...)

[Notes by RB:

1. It is disingenuous in the extreme for Jack Straw to claim that the debate over a deal between the UK and Libyan Governments over Abdelbaset Megrahi is absurd because he was in fact repatriated, not under the prisoner transfer agreement, but through compassionate release.

The memorandum of understanding regarding prisoner transfer that Tony Blair entered into in the course of the "deal in the desert" (and which paved the way for the formal prisoner transfer agreement) was intended by both sides to lead to the rapid return of Mr Megrahi to his homeland. This was the clear understanding of Libyan officials involved in the negotiations and to whom I have spoken.

It was only after the memorandum of understanding was concluded that Downing Street and the Foreign Office belatedly realised that the decision on repatriation of this particular prisoner was a matter not for Westminster and Whitehall but for the devolved Scottish Government in Edinburgh -- and that government had just come into the hands of the Scottish National Party and so could no longer be expected supinely to follow the UK Labour Government's wishes. That was when the understanding between the UK Government and the Libyan Government started to unravel, to the considerable annoyance and distress of the Libyans, who had been led to believe that repatriation under the PTA was only months away.

2. The letter from Dr Swire that is referred to in The Herald's article reads as follows:]

Lockerbie: the truth must be known

Before the Lockerbie trial, brokered by Nelson Mandela, had begun, I believed that it would reveal the guilt of the two Libyans in the murder of my daughter and all those others.

I have always believed that we should look for how something of benefit to the world could be somehow squeezed out of the appalling spectacle of brutal mass murder laid before us on those gentle Scottish hills. From before the Lockerbie trial, whilst still believing in Megrahi's guilt, I hoped even then that commercial links could be rebuilt between Libya and Britain for the benefit of both in the future. That was one of the reasons I went to talk to Gaddafi in 1991. It seemed that Libya's 5 million people with that country's immense oil wealth could mesh well with the many skilled people available among the 5 million population of Scotland.

What I heard at Zeist converted me to believing that the Libyan pair were in fact not involved in the atrocity after all. I remembered Nelson's comment at the time when a trial was agreed "No one country should be complainant, prosecutor and Judge". Yet under Clinton's presidency, the composition of the court had been altered so that Nelson's warning had been ignored. It was President Clinton too who told us all to realise 'its the economy, stupid.' But the UK, in the form of Scottish law, was now to exclude any international element, and the methods used to assemble the evidence revealed that the UK/US collusion was so close that it was safe to consider that alliance as Nelson's 'one country' also.

These matters are political and we have no expertise in that field, which appears distasteful to many. I do feel though that Lord Mandelson's disingenuous comments on the issue of the 'Prisoner Transfer Agreement' should lead him to resign (yet again).

More than 20 years later, we, the relatives, are still denied a full inquiry into the real issues for us - Who was behind the bombing? How was it carried out? Why did the Thatcher government of the day ignore all the warnings they got before Lockerbie? Why did they refuse even to meet us to discuss the setting up of this inquiry? Why was the information about the Heathrow break-in concealed for 12 years so that the trial court did not hear of it till after verdict? Why were we constantly subjected to the ignominy of being denied the truth as to why our families were not protected in what even our crippled FAI (crippled because it too was denied the information about Heathrow) found to have been a preventable disaster?

Let us stop mulling over the why and wherefore of Megrahi's release, I for one am delighted that a man I now consider innocent because of the evidence I was allowed to hear at Zeist is at home with his family at last. Let there be a responsible replacement immediately for the appeal a dying man understandably abandoned to ensure his release. Scotland should now take responsibility for reviewing a verdict which her own SCCRC already distrusts. The public's knowledge of the shifty dealings surrounding the 'Prisoner Transfer Agreement' should help to swell demand for objective assessment of the Megrahi case. Overturning the verdict would open the way for a proper international inquiry into why Lockerbie was allowed to happen, who was really behind it, as well as how the verdict came to be reached.

Let us turn our attention now, please, at last to the question of why we the relatives have been denied our rights to know who really murdered their families, and why those precious lives were not protected.

Obvious cover-up unacceptable for Scots citizens or international public

[The following is an excerpt from an item published on this blog on this date seven years ago:]

Ulrich Lumpert, an engineer at one time employed by MEBO in Zurich, gave evidence at the Lockerbie trial that a fragment of circuit board allegedly found amongst the aircraft debris (and which was absolutely crucial to the prosecution contention that the bomb which destroyed Pan Am 103 was linked to Libya) was part of an operative MST-13 timer manufactured by MEBO. In an affidavit sworn in Switzerland in July 2007 (available on the website www.lockerbie.ch) Lumpert now states that the fragment produced in court was in fact part of a non-operational demonstration circuit board that he himself had removed from the premises of MEBO and had handed over to a Lockerbie investigator on 22 June 1989 (six months AFTER the destruction of Pan Am 103).

If this is true, then it totally demolishes the prosecution version of how the aircraft was destroyed, as well, of course, as demonstrating deliberate fabrication of evidence laid before the court.

At the forthcoming appeal resulting from the SCCRC’s report on the Megrahi conviction, will the appeal court have an opportunity to assess the truth of Lumpert’s revised version of events? The hurdles are formidable. Section 106 (3C) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 provides that an appeal may not be founded upon evidence from a witness at the original trial which is different from, or additional to, the evidence that he gave at that trial, unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the new evidence was not given by him at the original trial and that explanation is itself supported by independent evidence. In this context “independent evidence” means evidence which was not heard at the original trial; which comes from a source other than the witness himself; and which is accepted by the appeal court as credible and reliable. It might well be extremely difficult to convince a court that these conditions were satisfied in Lumpert’s case.

What follows is the text of a press release regarding Lumpert’s affidavit from Professor Hans Koechler, who was one of the official UN-appointed observers at the Lockerbie trial:

(http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm)

I.P.O. Information Service

Lockerbie case: new accusations of manipulation of key forensic evidence

Statement of Dr. Hans Koechler, international observer appointed by the United Nations at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands (2000-2002), on a key witness’s admission of perjury in the Lockerbie Trial

Vienna, Austria, 28 August 2007 P/RE/20559c-is

On 4 August 2007 Dr Hans Koechler received from Mr Edwin Bollier, head of the Swiss-based company MEBO AG, a copy of the German original of an Affidavit, dated 18 July 2007 and signed by Mr Ulrich Lumpert, former employee (electronics engineer) of MEBO AG, Zurich, related to the Lockerbie case. In a statement released today, Dr Hans Koechler, who has followed the Lockerbie proceedings since the beginning of the trial in the Netherlands in May 2000, highlighted basic aspects and questions of this new revelation that appear to be of relevance not only in connection with the upcoming second appeal of the convicted Libyan national, but also for new prosecutorial action ex officio by the Scottish authorities.

In his affidavit Mr Lumpert implicitly admits having committed perjury as witness No. 550 before the Scottish Court in the Netherlands. He states (Par 2) that he has stolen a handmade (by him) sample of an “MST-13 Timer PC-board” from MEBO company in Zurich and handed it over, on 22 June 1989 (!), to an “official person investigating the Lockerbie case.” He further states (in Par 5) that the fragment of the MST-13 timer, cut into two pieces for “supposedly forensic reasons,” which was presented in Court as vital part of evidence, stemmed from the piece which he had stolen and handed over to an investigator in 1989. He further states that when he became aware that this piece was used for an “intentional politically motivated criminal undertaking” (vorsätzliche politisch kriminelle “Machenschaft”) he decided, out of fear for his life, to keep silent on the matter.

The rather late admission of Mr Lumpert is consistent with an earlier revelation in the British and Scottish media according to which a former Scottish police officer (whose identity has not yet been disclosed to the public) stated “that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan” for the bombing of the Pan Am jet (Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2005).

Upon receipt of the document, Dr Koechler informed the owner of MEBO AG on 7 August 2007 that Mr Lumpert will have to submit his affidavit under oath before the competent judicial authorities of Scotland. In the meantime (22 August 2007), the owner of MEBO AG has requested the Scottish judicial authorities – by way of the Swiss Prosecutor’s office and on the basis of the agreement on mutual judicial assistance between the UK and Switzerland – to investigate the alleged criminal manipulations referred to in Mr Lumpert’s statement.

In his capacity as UN-appointed observer of the Lockerbie trial, Dr Hans Koechler has repeatedly raised the issue of the timer fragment and expressed his amazement at the Defense team’s refusal to look into the matter during Mr Megrahi’s appeal when questions as to the reliability of forensic evidence had already been raised. (See Dr Koechler’s appeal report, Par 10 [c] of 26 March 2002; his statement of 23 August 2003, Par 10; and his statement of 14 October 2005, Par 2.)

It is to be recalled that, as witness before the Lockerbie court, Mr Edwin Bollier had raised the issue of the manipulation of the timer fragments, but was brusquely interrupted in his testimony by the presiding Judge and prevented from giving further information in this matter.

In the meantime (information received on 26 August 2007), Mr Lumpert has revised part of his Affidavit (Par 5); he now states that the letter “M” on the timer fragment (supposedly for the German word Muster: sample), unlike previously stated, has been engraved by himself. In view of this and earlier statements, Mr Lumpert’s credibility will have to be assessed very carefully by the competent judicial authorities and he will have to be made aware of the consequences, in terms of criminal law, of lying to the Court.

At the same time, the credibility of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is also at stake. In its News Release of 28 June 2007, in which it had announced the referral of Mr Al-Megrahi’s case to the Scottish High Court for a second appeal, the SCCRC found it necessary to “absolve” the investigating authorities of any suspicion of wrongdoing. Should Mr Lumpert’s confession be proven to be true, the SCCRC’s statement – “The Commission undertook extensive enquiries in this area but found nothing to support that allegation or to undermine the trial court’s conclusions in respect of the fragment” – will appear highly questionable, even dubious. The public will have to ask why a supposedly independent judicial review body would try to exonerate “preventively” officials in a case which is being returned to the High Court for a second appeal because of suspicions of a miscarriage of justice. If it is indeed the rule of law that governs the Scottish polity, the Scottish judicial authorities will have to deal with this new revelation ex officio– independently of how the appeal court in Mr Megrahi’s case will evaluate this witness’s confession of perjury.

Those responsible for the midair explosion of PanAm flight 103 will have to be identified and brought to justice. If there was any wrongdoing, criminal and/or due to incompetence, of the judicial authorities in the investigation and prosecution of the Lockerbie case, this will also have to be dealt with through proper procedures of criminal law. A continuation of the rather obvious cover-up which we have witnessed up until now is neither acceptable for the citizens of Scotland nor for the international public, Dr Koechler stated.

Dr Koechler's Lockerbie trial report: (http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm)  

Dr Koechler's Lockerbie appeal report of 26 March 2002:

(http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm)

Dr Koechler's statement of 23 August 2003 on the agreements between the UK, the USA and Libya: (http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-statement-aug2003.htm)

Dr Koechler's statement on new Lockerbie revelations of 14 October 2005: (http://i-p-o.org/nr-lockerbie-14Oct05.htm)

Dr Koechler's statement on the referral of the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed Al Megrahi to the High Court of Justiciary:

(http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-referral-29June2007.htm)  

Web Site of the Lockerbie Observer Mission of Dr Hans Koechler:

(http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm)