A deafening silence

What follows is an item published on this blog on this date two years ago:

Silence for the dead of Lockerbie

[This is the heading over an article posted recently on the Lockerbie Truth website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph.  It reads as follows:]

It is now almost six months since the revelation in John Ashton's book (Megrahi: You are my Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence) that the key evidence on which Baset Al-Megrahi was convicted can no longer be scientifically sustained.

And yet there remains a deafening silence on the part of the judges and Crown Office officials responsible for the investigation and conviction of Al-Megrahi.

The two main planks on which the prosecution's case was founded are:

1. A Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, identified Al-Megrahi as the stranger who had, shortly before the December 1988 bombing, bought clothes in his shop.

2. A fragment of an electronic timer board found at Lockerbie came from a batch of twenty sold to Libya in 1985 by Swiss electronics company MEBO.

1. The Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, during their own three-year investigation of the case, found six grounds for concluding that "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred".

One of the SCCRC's grounds was their discovery of a series of entries in the police diary of chief Dumfries and Galloway police investigator Harry Bell.

Bell recorded from the first days of his investigation that huge offers of reward were available from the United States to principal identification witness Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci.

In a letter sent by Dana Biehl of the US Department of Justice, it was explained that Gauci would receive "unlimited monies, with $10,000 available immediately" if Al-Megrahi was convicted.

Bell's police diary, and all knowledge of this offer and negotiations concerning the offer, were concealed from the trial and first appeal. The judges who convicted Al-Megrahi were unaware of these matters when they concluded that Gauci was a totally reliable witness.

Gauci's final and conclusive identification of Al-Megrahi took place during a police identity parade.

Yet Gauci could not fail to identify the man, since he had possessed for several weeks a copy of a magazine with a colour photo of Al-Megrahi, in which the Libyan was described as "the bomber".

2. The fragment of electronic timer board

It was upon this item that the entire case against Al-Megrahi would turn. In the minds of the judges it proved the Libyan connection, since the evidence appeared to show that it came from a batch sold to Libya in 1985.

It had - according to the available evidence - been manufactured by Swiss company Thüring, on behalf of electronics supplier MEBO. It seemed to be a "golden thread" linking Al-Megrahi to the bomb.

In 2008 the Al-Megrahi defence team discovered an extraordinary anomaly, one which had escaped the attention of the prosecution team, the Scottish Crown Office, and the Scottish police. It concerned the silver-like protective coating on the fragment, which covered the copper circuitry in order to prevent oxidisation.

A hand-written note by the government's chief forensic scientist Alan Feraday had recorded the protective coating as "100% tin".

Feraday's records also showed that he was aware of the difference between the Lockerbie fragment and the coating upon a control sample supplied to the police as part of their investigation. The control sample - manufactured by Swiss company Thüring - contained a 70/30% alloy of tin and lead.

The prosecution and police mistake was to speculate that the heat of the Lockerbie explosion had entirely evaporated the lead content. But no follow-up investigations in order to test this theory were carried out.

During the trial, the judges and defence team were unaware of the anomaly and accepted the provenance of the fragment from the metallurgical point of view.

When in 2008 the defence team checked with Thüring, it emerged that all timer boards made by that company throughout the 1980's were coated with an alloy mixture of 70% tin and 30% lead. Indeed, Thüring had always made, and continue to make, boards with a 70/30% alloy.

In 2008 the Thüring production manager swore an affidavit to this effect and was scheduled to repeat his evidence in Al-Megrahi's second appeal, abandoned in 2009.

Having discovered the anomaly, the defence team commissioned two highly experienced and reputable scientists to investigate the matter. In a series of experiments carried out at separate laboratories, the scientists tested the theory of evaporation of lead content by high temperatures.

In all cases, the lead did not evaporate. Thus they established beyond all reasonable doubt that the fragment found at Lockerbie could not have come from any of the timers sold to Libya by MEBO.

This evidence too was scheduled to be presented in Al-Megrahi's second appeal, abandoned in 2009.

The protocols and data resulting from the defence-commissioned experiments would no doubt be freely available, should the prosecuting authorities request to examine them.

Do the responsible officers not have a duty of conscience to at least enquire into this new evidence?  

And might we ask of Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland how he would feel if it was his own daughter who had been murdered by unknown persons, while a man remains falsely convicted for that offence?

Will not his silence, and that of his officials and the Scottish judiciary, should it continue, be interpreted by historians as the greatest of betrayals of Scottish society and the law?

[RB: Today, two years and six months after the revelation in John Ashton’s book, the deafening silence continues.]

HMG and the release of Megrahi: from a UK ambassador to Libya

What follows is taken from an article by Oliver Miles, a former UK ambassador to Libya, published on this date five years ago, shortly after Megrahi’s compassionate release, in the Mail on Sunday and reproduced on this blog:

Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s acknowledgement that the prospect of trade and oil deals with Libya played a part in the Government’s handling of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al Megrahi has heightened the intrigue.

One British motivation is clear: Libya, dirt poor in everything except oil and gas, has been an important energy producer for half a century. It sells £40billion of oil per year – mainly to Europe – and buys from every trading country in the world. Britain has become a major supplier.

Furthermore, Libya is that rare thing, a ‘rogue state’ which sponsored terrorism before being brought back into the international fold by diplomacy. (...)

For 15 years Libya has been slowly emerging from its status as international pariah, and dealing with London is regarded there as a staging post to its ultimate goal – the normalisation of relations with the United States.

There is also the matter of Megrahi, an important man from an influential tribe (...) Megrahi’s close family and tribal elders would have been putting pressure on the Libyan leader to do something about bringing their man home.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Libya has actively sought to deal with the international community, often using Britain as a diplomatic bridgehead to the US, which was in the past much more aggressive. It ended support for terrorism, paid compensation to victims on a vast scale and abandoned illegal programmes of weapons of mass destruction.

All this has made Libya increasingly attractive to the West. The benefits for Britain in having access to Libya’s oil, when gas supplies are subject to disruption by the Russians and nuclear plants are being decommissioned, should be obvious to anyone. (...)

Lockerbie has been central to Libya’s international rehabilitation. Under arrangements worked out in [1998] by Robin Cook and the Foreign Office, involving a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands, Megrahi was convicted of responsibility for the destruction of the Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie in 1988 which killed 270 people.

There have always been doubts about the evidence against him. Some believe, as I do, that the Libyans delivered him for trial only because they felt he was unlikely to be convicted.

Having read the legal judgment of his trial, I defy anyone to conclude from it that his guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet his first appeal, in 2002, was dismissed. He always insisted on his innocence and only abandoned his second appeal in the hope of a return to Libya. (...)

On his second visit, in 2007, [Tony Blair] launched a number of initiatives, including assisting the return of BP to Libya.

He also unwittingly laid the foundations for the current furore by proposing a Prisoner Transfer Agreement to allow British prisoners convicted in Libya to serve their sentences in Britain and vice versa – an arrangement which exists between many countries.

The Libyans saw it as an instrument to get Megrahi home.

But Blair seems conveniently to have overlooked the fact that Megrahi’s fate rested with the devolved government in Scotland. Given the bad relations between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalists, this was more than a formal problem.

Blair also overlooked an even bigger obstacle. Under the Lockerbie trial agreements, any sentence arising from it had to be served in Scotland (the Libyans insisted on this since they feared Megrahi might be handed to the Americans and executed).

The Lockerbie agreements are not properly documented, but the commitments were well known to the Foreign Office, the Americans and the Libyans. Tony Blair may not have bothered about them as he didn’t like inconvenient advice from officials.

As these difficulties emerged, the Libyans began to feel that they had been led up the garden path. And when it became known last year that Megrahi was terminally ill with prostate cancer, Tripoli began to issue not-very-veiled threats that if he died in jail relations between Britain and Libya would suffer.

When his condition deteriorated, two things happened: he inexplicably abandoned his appeal, and a story was leaked to the BBC that Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill was to grant compassionate release.

The reaction in the US was fevered amid rumours of a deal involving business and oil. The Americans have taken a line which they would call robust and I would call vindictive.

Some reactions have been foolish (Obama’s suggestion that Megrahi should have been put under house arrest in Tripoli), and others outrageous.

The demand by Obama and Brown that Megrahi should not receive a ‘hero’s welcome’ was a classic example of demanding that water should run uphill.

I believe Megrahi’s release was influenced more by the Scottish government’s desire to assert its independence rather than by any deal. Others may disagree, but time will tell.

Progress is slow and there are many obstacles to a better way of life in Libya. But BP’s operations continue and Megrahi has returned home to die.

Blair, Gaddafi, Megrahi

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009:

Tony Blair and Colonel Gadaffi discussed al-Megrahi

Tony Blair discussed with Colonel Gadaffi how best to “find a way through" for the jailed Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi after BP formally signed an exploration deal in 2007, according to Libya’s Europe minister.

In an interview with The Sunday Times in Tripoli yesterday, Abdulati al-Obeidi, the minister, said that al-Megrahi had been on the agenda during Blair’s visit that year.

“They (Blair and Gadaffi) discussed possible ways on how legally to bring al-Megrahi to Libya, whether through British or international laws or the Scottish system,” the minister said.

“At that time they were merely exchanging ideas. The idea was discussed as a title. Everyone was looking for a relationship to continue and prosper into the future and to find a way out for Abdul Baset, but nothing was agreed." (...)

The minister, Libya’s longest-serving politican, going back since 1968, said he had been asked by his government to become involved in the negotiations over al-Megrahi’s release following the prisoner’s cancer diagnosis.

It was he who first conveyed Libya’s concerns to Bill Rammell, a Foreign Office minister at the time, about the possible consequences should al-Megrahi die in prison.

“I told Rammell and then (Ivan) Lewis, his successor, that al-Megrahi was very sick with cancer and that if he died in prison it would be disastrous in general, not just with regards to trade issues, but more importantly with public opinion, as people here and in the Middle East believed he was innocent, a hero.

“If he had died in prison they would also have believed that his illness was brought about intentionally and this would have been bad.”

He said he had conveyed the same message to Scottish officials.

It was then that Rammell had told him that neither Gordon Brown, the prime minister, nor David Miliband, the foreign secretary, wanted al-Megrahi to die in prison.

Legal experts were hired to explore ways in which to seek his freedom and they were made aware of possible release on compassionate grounds as well as under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement.

The minister said al-Megrahi had insisted on dropping his appeal against conviction for the Lockerbie bombing in order to give both options a better chance.

“He was a sick man, a dying man who wanted to return home, reunite with his family and see them before he died,” he said. Al-Megrahi had declared when he made his decision: “I want to die among my family.”

[The above are excerpts from an article in The Sunday Times.]

Further information about Abdul Ati al-Obeidi, a highly significant figure in the Lockerbie saga, is to be found in blogposts here. My take on the “deal in the desert” can be read here.

"One of the most disgraceful miscarriages of justice in history"

[The following are excerpts from an article by Linda S Heard published seven years ago today in Gulf News and on this blog:]

On December 21 1988, a Pan Am plane mysteriously exploded over Scotland causing the death of 270 people from 21 countries. The tragedy provoked global outrage. In 1991, two Libyans were charged with the bombing.

In the event, only Abdulbaset Ali Mohammad Al Megrahi, a Libyan agent, was pronounced guilty by a panel of three judges, who based their decision on largely circumstantial evidence. Al Megrahi and the Libyan government have protested their innocence all along.

Nevertheless, after suffering punitive UN sanctions which froze overseas Libyan bank accounts and prevented the import of spare parts needed for the country's oil industry, Tripoli reluctantly agreed to pay $2.7 billion to victims? families ($10 million per family), on condition the pay-out would not be deemed as admission of guilt.

In February, 2004, the Libyan prime minister told the BBC that his country was innocent but was forced to pay-up as a "price for peace".

Al Megrahi is currently serving a life sentence but earlier this year the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled there may have been a miscarriage of justice on the basis of lost or destroyed evidence.

Later this month, a Scottish appeals court is due to revisit the case and is expected to overturn Al Megrahi's conviction as unsafe.

The Libyan leader's son Saif Al Islam recently said he is confident Al Megrahi will soon be found innocent and will be allowed to return home.

On Sunday, an Observer expose written by Alex Duval Smith reported "a key piece of material evidence used by prosecutors to implicate Libya in the Lockerbie bombing has emerged as a probable fake" with allegations of "international political intrigue and shoddy investigative work" levelled at "the British government, the FBI and the Scottish police".

The Observer story maintains Ulrich Lumpert a Swiss engineer who was "a crucial witness" has now confessed that he lied about the origins of a timer switch.

Recently, Lumpert gave a sworn declaration to a Swiss court, which read "I stole a prototype MST-13 timing device" and "gave it without permission on June 22, 1989 to a person who was officially investigating the Lockerbie affair".

The owner of the company that manufactured the switch - forced into bankruptcy after being sued by Pan Am - says he told police early in the enquiry that the timer switch was not one his company had ever sold to Libya.

Moreover, he insists the timer switch shown to the court had been tampered with since he initially viewed it in Scotland, saying the pieces appeared to have been "carbonised" in the interim. He also says the court was so determined to prove Libya's guilt it brushed aside his evidence. (...)

Professor Hans Koechler, appointed by the UN to be an observer at the trial, has termed its outcome "a spectacular miscarriage of justice". Koechler has repeatedly called for an independent enquiry, which, to date, the British government has refused to allow.

Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, insists "no court is likely to get to the truth, now that various intelligence agencies have had the opportunity to corrupt the evidence".

Jim Swire, the father of one of the Lockerbie victims, said "Scottish justice obviously played a leading part in one of the most disgraceful miscarriages of justice in history."

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador, who was earlier second-in-command of Britain's Aviation and Maritime Department from 1989 to 1992, writes about a strange incident on his website.

Murray says a colleague told him "in a deeply worried way" about an intelligence report indicating Libya was not involved in the Pan Am bombing. When he asked to see it, his colleague said it was marked for named eyes only, which Murray describes as "extremely unusual". Earlier, a CIA report that had reached a similar conclusion had been conveniently buried.

If Al Megrahi walks, as is likely, Libya will be vindicated and would presumably be able to reclaim monies paid in compensation along with its reputation.

This would also be a highly embarrassing turn of events for Britain and the US not to mention their respective intelligence agencies, and would leave the question of who bombed Pan Am Flight 103 unanswered.

In a perfect world, Libya should also receive an apology from its accusers and should be allowed to sue for damages for all that it lost as a result of UN sanctions.

But in a world where political expediency often triumphs, the appeal has no foregone conclusion despite the exposure of dubious "evidence" and suspect "witnesses".

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.]