More on the Megrahi prisoner transfer machinations

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on 16 January 2009. It follows on from an article published first on 15 January 2009 and re-posted on this blog yesterday.

Follow-up on prisoner transfer

Today's issue of The Herald has a follow-up article on the alleged moves (which would involve abandonment of the current appeal) to secure Abdelbaset Megrahi's transfer back to Libya to serve the remainder of his sentence. It reads in part:

'The father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing [Dr Jim Swire] plans to meet the man convicted of carrying out the atrocity to discuss a diplomatic deal which would allow the Libyan to return home, ending any prospect of an appeal.

'As revealed by The Herald yesterday, official talks have been held in secret on allowing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence in Libya but any appeal proceedings would have to be dropped for the transfer to be agreed. (...)

'He wants to raise the issues at a meeting with Megrahi which he hopes will take place "fairly soon" but he said he would not ask the Libyan, who is suffering from advanced prostate cancer, to stay in Scotland simply so the evidence can be heard in court.

'He said: "I couldn't possibly go to him and say Please continue the appeal because we want to get to the truth'. I couldn't possibly take that attitude. He is an intelligent man, an honest kind of guy. I wouldn't be surprised if he is mulling over his decision, considering the effects of it on people like myself, people who want to get to the truth.

"I wouldn't want him hanging back on the decision to go home because he thought that he shouldn't, out of loyalty to people like me." (...)

'Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said it was "very important" that evidence collated for a future appeal should be released even if legal proceedings are dropped.

'He said: "Theoretically all of this material is Megrahi's. He is the client and he, or his wife and children, would make the decision. I can't think of any reason why the material that Megrahi's lawyers have gathered for the appeal shouldn't simply be released into the public domain.

'"It would be a very unusual step and there are difficulties. Some of the material that has been discovered will be, I think, highly defamatory so if it is simply disclosed without any legal protection that could cause legal difficulties."

'Dr Swire, who first met Megrahi more than three years ago, said: "I would hope some outlet for the evidence could be found but it would have to be used in a format where there was credibility."

'During First Minister's Questions at the Scottish Parliament yesterday, the "prisoner transfer agreement" was raised by Conservative leader Annabel Goldie, who asked whether the integrity and principles of the Scottish justice system would be upheld in relation to any plan to release Megrahi. Alex Salmond replied "yes".

'The Tory leader then asked if Megrahi would be returned to Libya, adding that releasing the bomber would cause "deep unease". Mr Salmond said he could not prejudge or comment on a decision he might be asked to make.'

The Scotsman also has a brief article on the matter. It can be read here.

Behind the scenes manoeuvring to return Megrahi to Libya

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on 15 January 2009:

Secret talks on deal to return Megrahi to Libya

[This is the headline over a front-page article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads:]

Official talks are being held in secret which could result in the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing dropping his appeal and being freed from Greenock Prison and sent back to Libya under a diplomatic deal.

The Herald can reveal today that senior civil servants from both the Westminster and Holyrood administrations have met a delegation from Tripoli to discuss how to resolve the impasse over Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

It is understood an agreement could be reached within months which would see him serve the remainder of his 27-year sentence with his family in Libya.

Megrahi is suffering from advanced prostate cancer but has been denied bail by judges pending his appeal. The appeal is due to begin on April 27, but could last as long as 12 months because of the complexity of the case and volume of material to be examined.

However, while he wants to clear his name, it is far from certain that he would survive such a long appeal case, and now there is an opportunity for the UK and Libya to settle the matter away from the courts and through diplomatic channels.

According to Libyan officials, senior civil servants at Whitehall have actively "encouraged" them to apply for prisoner transfer for Megrahi - a move likely to be highly unpopular with campaigners and some of the relatives of the victims of the bombing, who want to hear the fresh evidence in open court.

A Libyan source said: "We have been encouraged to apply for the prisoner transfer option once the agreement is ratified, but there are concerns as to whether the UK Government can be trusted."

The Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) was signed off by a delegation from Tripoli and senior UK officials in November and is due to be ratified by the UK and Libyan parliaments in March.

It would take months for an agreement on such a transfer to be reached, partly because Megrahi is serving a life sentence and his case would have to be reviewed by the Scottish Prison Service and the Parole Board.

The final decision will ultimately lie with Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary - a point clarified last year during the very public argument which followed the Scottish Government's discovery that it had not been privy to the details of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi in May 2007 as part of the "deal in the desert".

While Whitehall officials denied the deal and subsequent PTA had anything to do with the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the row between the Scottish and UK Governments highlighted the fact that it was about Megrahi.

Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "If this happens [if he decides he wants to go home and is allowed no other options] it will leave a stain on the Scottish criminal justice system because lots of people now believe there is something wrong with the conviction.

"But is that really the path a civilised legal system should be taking? Compelling him to go down that path would leave serious questions about the criminal justice system unanswered."

Neither the Foreign Office nor the Scottish Government is able to comment publicly on the fact they are encouraging an application for a transfer, such is the sensitivity of the case.

A UK Government spokesman said: "HM Government continues to engage positively with Libya, but it remains the case that any decision relating to an individual prisoner will be for Scottish ministers to take."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "There have been no recent meetings between Scottish Government officials and representatives of the Libyan government. However, if the Libyan officials were to seek further meetings for factual information, we would be happy to provide that.

"The meetings last year were purely to provide factual information. No encouragement or advice was given on any of the procedures open to Mr Megrahi."

[A further article headed "Libyan may not live to see conclusion of appeal: Try to clear name or return home: Megrahi faces decision" appears in the inside pages.

A leader headed "The Megrahi dilemma" ends with the following paragraph:

'Megrahi's return home under the PTA might seem a neat solution but it ignores several factors. Megrahi continues to plead innocence and wants to clear his name (the main witness against him has been largely discredited). Testing all the evidence, including the secret document, in an appeal hearing offers the best hope of establishing the truth about the Lockerbie bombing. The opportunity will be gone if there is no appeal. The prospect of securing any subsequent convictions, should that be a possibility, would be remote as the world has moved on and relations with the countries suspected of involvement, including Libya, Iran and Syria, have changed. If, however, the integrity and independence of the Scottish judicial system is paramount, the appeal process should be allowed to run its course and make a final determination. Justice should be blind, not thwarted by political or diplomatic convenience.'

The issue has also been raised in the Scottish Parliament. The exchange between Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Tory group and First Minister Alex Salmond can be read here.]

US-Libya rapprochement following Lockerbie trial

[The following are excerpts from an article by Robert S Greenberger published in The Wall Street Journal on this date in 2002:]

Libya's Col Moammar Gadhafi, is attempting a rehabilitation.

Top US and Libyan officials have held several unpublicized meetings in England and Switzerland in recent years to discuss improving ties. Public-relations campaigns and lobbying efforts on Libya's behalf are under way, funded in part by oil money and driven by a desire to cash in on future deals or resume business interrupted by sanctions. The Libyan leader himself has been taking steps and sending signals that suggest he may want to get out of the terrorism business, US officials say.

The Gadhafi makeover could be reaching a critical moment. Last week, a top US official and a Libyan intelligence operative met near London in another attempt to talk about the steps Libya must take before ties can be resumed. Later this month, a Scottish court is scheduled to hear the appeal of a Libyan intelligence agent found guilty in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103, over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people, including 189 Americans. Libya has signaled to US officials directly and through intermediaries that when the legal process ends, the Gadhafi government may compensate the victims' families and take responsibility for the bombing, US officials say. Many US officials believe Col. Gadhafi himself was involved in the Pan Am bombing, the bloodiest terrorist attack on Americans before Sept 11.

In October, William Burns, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East, who was at last week's meeting outside London, addressed a congressional committee about the purpose of US diplomacy toward Libya. He said it was meant "to make clear that there are no shortcuts around Libya ... accepting responsibility for what happened and also for paying appropriate compensation" for the Pan Am bombing.

There's a lot to be gained on both sides from rapprochement. Resolving the bombing could persuade Washington to lift the sanctions imposed in 1986. That would open the way for American companies to do business with the oil-rich country and for Libya to do some much-needed repair work on its economy. (...)

Still, the diplomatic dance between the US and Libya has produced a stark change in Libya's previously sharp anti-American rhetoric. It began in secret more than two years before Sept 11, in a series of meetings on the outskirts of London and in Geneva, Switzerland. Those meetings brought together senior officials of the Clinton administration, British officials and a top Libyan intelligence operative, Musa Kusa, according to US officials.

The idea to meet emerged in February 1998, when the US was embroiled in one of its periodic crises with Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair telephoned President Clinton to discuss growing complaints by moderate Arab allies that the West was dealing unfairly with Arab states. Mr Blair suggested it might be helpful to resolve the Libya issue in some way, a Clinton administration official recalls. (...)

President Clinton didn't move until after Col. Gadhafi agreed in April 1999 to hand over two Libyan suspects in the Pan Am 103 bombing. The White House then sent Martin Indyk, the assistant secretary of state for the Middle East at the time, and Bruce Riedel, the top White House Middle East staffer, to meet with Mr Kusa, who often handles delicate missions for Col Gadhafi. Mr Kusa has been associated for more than 20 years with Libyan intelligence, which has been connected to assassinations of Libyan dissidents abroad and the Pan Am bombing. (...)

In the highest-level contacts since President Reagan imposed sanctions in 1986, the US held four meetings in which Clinton administration officials laid out the steps Col Gadhafi must take to warm up relations with Washington. US officials hammered away at one theme: Libya must compensate the families of Pan Am 103 victims and take responsibility for the terrorist bombing to make normal ties possible. A United Nations resolution also calls for Libya to compensate the victims' families and take responsibility for the bombing.

Then, the day after the Sept 11 terrorist attacks, Col Gadhafi condemned the actions publicly as "horrifying, destructive." In October, in a previously planned secret meeting, Mr Kusa met in England with Mr Burns. Mr Kusa talked about what he called their common enemy, terrorism, according to a diplomat familiar with the session. Mr Kusa offered information on the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which is believed to be linked to al Qaeda and which also targets Col Gadhafi.

On Dec 5, the US included the group on an expanded list of terrorist organizations whose members will be automatically barred from the US or expelled if found here. At last week's meeting outside London, Mr Burns reiterated the American stance on Pan Am 103, according to a State Department official. (...)

Turning over the terrorism suspects also bolstered a public-relations and lobbying campaign conducted by Libya and its supporters, with quiet help from American companies. Four days after Col Gadhafi agreed to the handover, the US-Libya Dialogue Group held its first meeting, in Maastricht, the Netherlands. Mustafa Fitouri, a Libyan who is an information-technology professor at the Maastricht School of Management, helped arrange the session. He says the nonprofit group was set up "to show people in both countries, away from government, that people can communicate, work with each other." (...)

Mr Fitouri says some funds for the meeting were provided by US and Libyan companies, which he won't name. He adds that he doesn't know where all the money comes from because it's handled by a person, whom he also won't name, at a Libyan university. Until the Pan Am 103 case is resolved and sanctions are lifted, US companies don't want to be identified as being close to Tripoli.

Megrahi's son joins campaign to clear his father's name

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

The son of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has joined a Facebook group protesting his father's innocence to help dispel the notion that an application for a posthumous appeal is not backed by his family.

Khaled El Megrahi has joined the Friends of Justice for Megrahi group and has been welcomed warmly by the other 180 members committed to clearing his father's name.

They include British relatives of the 270 victims who perished 26 years ago, Professor Robert Black, the architect of the trial under Scots Law in a neutral country, and prominent figures like James Robertson, one of Scotland's greatest novelists. Robertson's acclaimed novel, The Professor of Truth, was based loosely on the Lockerbie atrocity which killed 270 people in December 1988.

Shortly before El Megrahi joined the group, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had expressed doubts about continuing the investigation that could lead to a fresh attempt to overturn the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

The commission had asked the High Court to decide whether it could continue with the application, submitted earlier this year by Aamer Anwar, the Scottish solicitor acting for the Megrahi family and other supporters.

Scots Law allows for posthumous appeals to be pursued by the executor of the deceased, and leaves it open to others with an irrefutable interest to pursue justice, but their right is not enshrined in the same way as the executor's.

The SCCRC is seeking clarification about whether the victims' families alone could pursue a fresh appeal without the support of Megrahi's executor.

The confusion has arisen because the SCCRC insists it must have the original document confirming El Megrahi as his father's executor.

Mr Anwar said that the current climate in Libya made it extremely unlikely the legal team could travel there soon to obtain the necessary documentation, nor would they ask the Megrahi family to put their lives at risk.

He added: "With regards to the rights of the victims' families to pursue an appeal, we would submit that there is a fundamental duty on the state to protect the rights of victims of crime, which includes responsibility for the administration of justice."

Without the original executry documents, other Megrahi family members and "outsiders" like the British relatives of the victims, including Dr Jim Swire and the Rev John Mosey, would have to persuade the High Court of the legitimacy of their interest.

Given the stakes for the Scottish criminal justice system, there are fears that the judges who decide on the SCCRC's submission will not be easily convinced to encourage further close scrutiny of crucial aspects of the case, most notably the conduct of police, prosecutors and expert witnesses.

El Megrahi's public support for his father, therefore, could be very significant.

The SCCRC in 2007 referred the case back to the appeal court for what would have been a second appeal on six grounds that suggested there might have been a miscarriage of justice.

Since then, the case for an appeal has been strengthened by fresh scientific evidence showing that a fragment said to be from the timer that detonated the bomb was not a match for a type of device that the court accepted had been used and had been sold only to Libya.

Megrahi died on 20 May 2012, some 33 months after his release on compassionate grounds as he was dying from cancer.

He abandoned his appeal believing it would help secure his compassionate release, and although the Scottish Government has always denied a deal was done, his controversial release was confirmed soon after.

El Megrahi was welcomed to the Facebook group by Prof Black, who said: "I hope that 2015 will be the year when the injustice to your father, and your family, will begin to be rectified."

The sentiment was echoed later by other members, and El Megrahi later posted short messages thanking supporters, expressing hope for progress, and offering best wishes and a happy new year to all members.

[RB: Other members of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s immediate family are also members of the Facebook group.]

First Scottish judge to meet Lockerbie accused dies

[What follows is taken from an obituary published in The Herald on 10 January 2015:]

Graham Loudon Cox.
Lawyer.

Born: December 22, 1933;
Died: December 27, 2014.

Graham Cox, who has died aged 81, was a young army lawyer who went on to play a key role in the initial stages of the Lockerbie bombing case.

By then a veteran sheriff, who had already presided over the Lanarkshire Fatal Accident Inquiry into what was then the world's worst outbreak of E.coli, he was Sheriff Principal of the jurisdiction that covered the site of the atrocity and the first member of the Scottish judicial system to come into contact with the two Libyan suspects.

He sat on the bench at Camp Zeist, the temporary court set up in the Netherlands to hear the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, when they made their first appearance in private there on April 6, 1999. The pair, alleged to be behind the 1988 blowing up of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie which left 270 dead, faced charges of conspiracy, murder and violations of aviation laws.

The following week, April 14, Sheriff Principal Cox committed them for trial, a court case from which the reverberations still echo, more than a quarter of a century after the bombing. Fhimah was acquitted in 2001. Megrahi was convicted of the killings and sentenced to life imprisonment. He maintained his innocence and died of cancer in 2012 after being released on compassionate grounds.

The Scottish Government and a Megrahi inquiry

What follows is an item first posted on this blog on this date in 2011:

Megrahi inquiry delay sparks anger

[This is the headline over an article by Bob Smyth in today's edition of The Sunday Post. It does not appear on the newspaper's vestigial website. The article reads as follows:]

The Scottish Government has been criticised over its dealings with an influential parliamentary committee.

Holyrood's Public Petitions Committee finally received answers over ministers' refusal to hold an inquiry into the Lockerbie case on Friday -- a month after the deadline.

The response came after The Sunday Post quizzed the Scottish Government on the delay.

Before the late reply arrived, the campaigners behind the petition slammed the hold-up and a member of the committee also hit out.

Justice for Megrahi, who believe bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice, have demanded the inquiry.

The campaigners met the committee on November 9 to highlight their petition calling for a probe into the bombing and the conviction of Megrahi. The group includes Lockerbie relatives, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, TV journalist Kate Adie, retired politician Tam Dalyell and Professor Robert Black, who was central to the setting up of the Lockerbie trial.

The Scottish Government has always refused an inquiry, saying it's beyond their jurisdiction.

Justice for Megrahi secretary Robert Forrester said, "We want them to have an inquiry about the matters that come under Scotiish jurisdiction, such as the police investigation, Megrahi's trial and appeal and his release. (...)

"They were supposed to respond to the committee by December 10 but didn't."

Committee member Cathie Craigie [MSP, Labour] said, "It's very concerning if the Scottish Government is not engaging with the proper process and responding within the timescale. They have an army of civil servants."

The Scottish Government reply said, "The Government’s view is that the petition is inviting the Scottish Government to do something which falls properly to the criminal justice system -- inquire into whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place. 

"The Inquiries Act 2005 provides that, to the extent that the matters dealt with are devolved, and criminal justice is devolved, the Scottish Government would have the power to conduct an inquiry.

"However, the wide ranging and international nature of the issues involved (even if the inquiry is confined to the trial and does not concern itself with wider matters) means that there is every likelihood of issues arising which are not devolved, which would require either a joint inquiry with or a separate inquiry by the UK government."

Legal expert Professor Robert Black said, "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has no jurisdiction and powers outwith Scotland. Yet it managed to conduct an investigation into the Megrahi conviction that enabled it to reach the conclusion that the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. 

"There is no conceivable reason why a Scottish inquiry under the Inquiries Act should have less success in obtaining and uncovering evidence."

[Later today I shall be starting my trek from the Roggeveld back to Edinburgh. It is therefore unlikely that there will be further posts on this blog before 13 January.

Here are a few lines from one of the poems in Michael Cole’s Ghaap: Sonnets from the Northern Cape:

The place was empty, void of anything,

A barren wilderness of thorn and thirst,

Of night frost, and armoured sun spearing

Hard rays all day; the diamonds in the worst

Terrain they could imagine, but their call

Undeniable. No sustenance

But for the game, until they'd shot it all.

Ox and horse brought food and elegance,

Machinery and cables, makeshift sheds,

Rhodes, apartheid, flu and iron beds.]

Nelson Mandela's forthrightness discomfits Tony Blair

[What follows is a report from The Associated Press news agency published on this date in 1999:]

Officials from South Africa and Saudi Arabia will fly to Libya to negotiate the surrender of two Libyan suspects in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner, President Nelson Mandela said Thursday.

Mandela made the announcement at a joint news conference with visiting British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Both leaders expressed confidence that an impasse over bringing the two Libyans to trial in a third country could be broken.

The downing of the New York-bound airliner on Dec 21, 1988, over Lockerbie, Scotland, killed 270 people.

Blair had tried to limit his comments to generalities and grimaced when Mandela announced the pending mission.

He also became uncomfortable when Mandela criticized the Dec 16-19 US and British airstrikes against Iraq. Earlier Thursday, about 50 Muslims demonstrating against the attacks clashed with police in Cape Town, which Blair plans to visit Friday and Saturday.

Still, Blair was optimistic about the chances for the mission to Libya.

“There has been progress ... on an issue that some people thought was completely impractical,” Blair said. Britain sought a breakthrough, “out of a deep respect for the families of the Lockerbie victims and their desire for this trial to happen,” he said.

Mandela said Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Washington, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and the director-general of Mandela's office, Jakes Gerwel, would fly to Libya in the next few days for talks with Libyan officials.

He said the UN Security Council had agreed to temporarily lift its air embargo of Libya to allow the two officials to fly to the Libyan capital of Tripoli. [RB: Largely through the influence of President Mandela, UK and US opposition to this mission at the United Nations was overcome.]

Mandela has already played a key role in convincing the United States and Britain to support a neutral venue for the trial and has relayed the proposal to Libyan leader Col Moammar Gadhafi, with whom Mandela maintains close ties.

Libya has agreed in principle to let the two stand trial in the Netherlands before a panel of Scottish judges. But the Libyan government demands that they be jailed in Libya if they are convicted.

In Tripoli, an unidentified Libyan Foreign Ministry official said Thursday that his government was still waiting for more information.

“(The United States and Britain) have to answer especially the points on the venue of imprisonment and the lifting of the sanctions,” the Libyan official said, according to a report by Egypt's official Middle East News Agency.

US and British diplomats have said that, if convicted, the suspects would serve their sentences in a British prison and that sanctions would be suspended after the handover.

Earlier Thursday, Blair lashed out at Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, calling him “a threat.”

Mandela noted later that “the charter of the United Nations provides that member nations should seek to settle their problems through peaceful means.”

“Tony here and Bill Clinton, I have no doubt, respect that,” Mandela said.

Blair stiffened at the comment and told reporters: “I have absolutely nothing to add to what I said this morning on that.”

Hubris in defence of the indefensible

[What follows is a response from Dr Jim Swire to Magnus Linklater’s articles Lockerbie conviction is upheld by review and Lockerbie review kills conspiracy theories in The Times on 20 December. Dr Swire intended to post the response on the relevant thread on this blog but I thought it should appear as a separate item:]

There were three particular aspects of comments attributed to the Crown Office and thus to Lord Advocate Mulholland, by Mr Linklater in The Times of 20 December 2014 which were intensely irritating to some Lockerbie relatives.

The first was that the Lord Advocate should be involved in such comments at all on that particular date knowing full well that many relatives here, such as myself, can no longer believe the Megrahi verdict to be justified and that therefore the precious memories to be renewed on the following day would be disturbed by his clear attempt to pander to US relatives, most of whom have not yet realised the extraordinary twisting of justice which seems to have occurred at Zeist, through not having reviewed the proceedings and subsequent fallout for themselves.

I am not aware that it is part of the remit of the Crown Office to suckle the American public, rather than objectively to examine evidence in criminal cases on behalf of the people of Scotland.

Those who do care about the human tragedy of this case should remember that the exhibition of such hubris in defence of the indefensible will, when the truth does eventually emerge, only add to the misery of those relatives who never detected the deception for themselves.

The second was the claim that the facts had been re-examined and that there was not a shred of doubt about the integrity of the verdict. In the face of the previous findings by the SCCRC after three years hard work, the Crown Office appears to have insulted their work as well as astonishing many Scots. Perhaps Lord Advocate Mulholland should hang the famous comments of the late Mandy Rice-Davies at the foot of his bed.

The third was the claim by the Lord Advocate that “our focus remains on the evidence, and not on speculation and supposition.” This is supported according to Mr Linklater by the police who are quoted as saying that the evidence (the forensic item PT35b etc) would have to have been planted within 23 days. Linklater writes:

‘Police are adamant, however, that the fragment was under supervision. They point out that the evidence would have to have been planted within 23 days, requiring knowledge of all the evidence to come — including Megrahi, whose existence was then unknown.’

Perhaps Lord Advocate Mulholland and those representing the police have forgotten the details of the provenance of these items.

They were presented to the court as having been recovered by prosecution forensic scientists from the only police evidence bag found to have had its official label illegally interfered with. The alteration to the label was both criminal and significant. The wording had been changed from the ‘charred cloth’ of the original label to read ‘charred debris’ The other debris of course included PT35b, the mysterious board fragment, mimicking boards belonging to the Libyans, but having a fundamentally different mode of finish simply not available to the firm which had made the Libyan boards prior to December 1988. It could not therefore have been derived from the remains  of a Libyan bomb timer allegedly  found in the innocent fields round Lockerbie.

An explanation from the Crown Office as to what they have done to discover who altered that police label and whether or not that crime was accompanied by any additions to the bag's contents, might, if conducted intensively by a party free of any hubristic attachment to the marvels of Lord Advocate Mulholland's office do more to advance the truth in this dire case than does the police assumption that any interference 'must' have occurred 'within 23 days'. Again the late Mandy applies.

Has the Crown Office had the sanctity of the ‘supervision’ which the police claim protected their evidence bags objectively investigated?

If so, what was found?                 

If not, why not? 

[Other responses to the articles in The Times can be found here.]