"I will never understand your motives or your methods"

[In an email of 16 July 2015 addressed to Dr Jim Swire and me, Frank Duggan, President of the US Lockerbie relatives organization Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 Inc wrote: “Prof Black and Dr Swire. Even if you honestly believe that Gadhafi had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, he certainly did enough to lead this list of monsters. I will never understand your motives or your methods.”

The “list of monsters” refers to the Evolution of Evil television series, particularly the programme Gaddafi: Mad Dog of the Middle East.

What follows is the text of Dr Swire’s reply to Mr Duggan, dated 17 July:]

Dear Frank,

I agree with your statement (copied below) that:-

" I (Frank Duggan) will never understand your (Jim Swire's et al) motives or your methods."

My motive is so simple and has been so many times stated that it is clear you are unable to understand that it is simply to know the truth - which includes as much of the truth about what my Government and yours really know as can be forced from their unwilling grasp.

That is my motive: what is yours in maintaining adherence to the story accepted by the Zeist court?

Where were you as the evidence unfolded? Were you there?

I was.

As for my methods they are to question those directly involved wherever possible and make an assessment upon what they say.

Therefore my motive in repeatedly meeting with Gaddafi and other Arab leaders was to see what they had to say and more significantly to try to persuade them to send the accused for trial under Scottish law.

Of course the likes of Nelson Mandela (did you ever meet him? - I did) were of far greater importance than we could ever hope to be, but at least we did our utmost to persuade the late Colonel to send them over.

Did you try to do that?

In the case of Gaddafi I decided that he was inscrutable and that I could never find out what he did or did not know. That is why if you review all that I have said, you will find that since the Zeist trial I have never claimed to know whether he was involved or not, only to being sure (largely courtesy of the Zeist trial evidence) that his man Megrahi was not involved.

I confess that before the trial I believed him to be involved and I wanted his men to be tried, in order to learn the truth. This was wrong in so far as all accused are entitled to a presumption of innocence, but my Government had told me that there was irrefutable evidence about Libyan involvement but none about any other country. I was naive and that is my excuse

As early as February 1989 I had been shown a detailed warning received by the UK Government from the West German BKA in October 1988. It showed that the PFLP-GC of Damascus had perfected bombs which were inert at ground level but, having no user adjustments except an arming plug, on sensing the drop in pressure as an aircraft climbs, they were committed to exploding around 35, plus or minus five, minutes following take off.

Such devices had to be infiltrated at the airport of take off of the target flight, in this case Heathrow: if inserted at Frankfurt they would explode over Europe before reaching Heathrow. All this was repeated with further details by Herr Gobel during the Zeist trial.

Perhaps you remember that the Lockerbie flight lasted 38 minutes from take off?

If you re-examine the evidence led by Mr Bedford, the chief baggage handler at Heathrow, you will see that he reported that two suitcases had been put into the Pan Am baggage container AV4041 with no known security clearance and in his absence, long before the Frankfurt flight had even landed, that no one would admit having put them there, and that one of them was a dark coloured hard sided 'Samsonite type' suitcase occupying the position where the origin of the explosion occurred.

Funny that, it fits the description of the primary suitcase containing the bomb and the court decided without justificatory evidence of any kind that in fact one of the late arriving cases from Frankfurt 'must' have displaced it, apparently using the circular argument that the bomb must have come from Frankfurt.

The point of origin of the explosion can be explored in the Air Accident Investigation Branch report 2/90.

You  might also like to read the book Adequately explained by stupidity? by Morag Kerr which details events at Heathrow.

Of course, the Scottish police/Crown Office had also known from February 1989 that the Heathrow airside security had been broken into 16 hours prior to Lockerbie, but for whatever reason they kept that concealed from the defence and the court.

As the trial progressed we learned that the identifying of Megrahi as the buyer of the famous Maltese clothing depended on the evidence of a man who knew that if his evidence convicted the Libyan he was in line for several million dollars.

Is that a sound basis for reliable evidence do you think?

Then there was the fact, as their Lordships themselves had to admit in their summary, that there simply was no evidence to show how Megrahi  was supposed to have got the bomb on board at Malta.

When I pushed for trial under Scottish criminal law, I believed that the task of the court was to prove a case 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Do you believe that these proceedings reached that standard?

But of course you will say a fragment of circuit board proved that a long running timer sold to Libya had been used, not one of the cruder fixed run-time devices made in Damascus.

Do you know that that fragment was found by a UK forensic officer within the only Scottish police evidence bag whose label, the court heard, had been illegally tampered with? Could there be reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the bag's contents also?

Do you know that that same forensic officer told the court under oath that the fragment was "similar in all respects" to the boards in the timers owned by Libya?

Have you seen the dated report from him which shows that he knew before giving that evidence that the plating was incompatible?

Have you read the scientific academic reports which confirm that this plating difference could not have been caused by exposure to a Semtex explosion?

In this country we had a philosopher now commonly referred to as 'William of Occam' he was born in 1285 (rather before the Pilgrim Fathers got their act together I fear) in the little Surrey village of Occam.

His best known philosophical statement is nowadays currently rendered along the lines that 'The simplest explanation that fits the known facts is usually the correct one'.

Having studied all the available evidence as best I can I think the bomb was built by Marwhan Khreesat of the PFLP-GC, and put aboard at Heathrow with the dreadful consequences we all know.

William of Occam would no doubt have preferred that conclusion to the complexities of the Megrahi/Malta/Frankfurt scenario.

I am satisfied that the Megrahi/Malta story is nothing more than a fable, because there is far more evidence against it than for it, and that in this case it is wise to follow William's advice.

I wonder what your guess would be as to the origin of the fragment known as PT35b? The realisation that it really could not have come from one of the timers owned by Libya destroys the one anomaly which seemed to genuinely support the Malta hypothesis.

I have not been able to find out what happened between October 1988 when the Germans lost track of at least one of the PFLP-GC type bombs and December 1988 at Heathrow, nor have I been able to discover who broke into Heathrow airside.

I therefore have no idea whether Gaddafi himself was responsible in some way, and that is why I do not claim to know whether he was a guilty party. Study the records again.

You Frank say "Even if you honestly believe that Gaddafi had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing, he certainly did enough to lead this list of monsters", I have tried to explain that I do not know whether the late colonel was involved over Lockerbie or not. It looks likely that his right hand man Moussa Koussa probably at least knew of the plot, his body language suggested guilt when I met him, but that would make an even weaker case than the story I heard at Zeist, would it not.

I doubt I shall respond to your emails in future, there is no point if your eyes and ears are closed to fact based discussion, but there are two favours I would ask of you all the same.

1.) I have always been aware that our search for the truth has upset certain US relatives by disturbing what they see as their closure. Of course they would see this email as just 'Swire trotting out the same old arguments again' but it may none the less be upsetting for them to read. Some will have seeds of doubt in their minds aware that the constancy of our position could most easily be explained (though you say you cannot understand it yourself) by having the simplicity of truth; by being in other words correct. I have not found a way to avoid upsetting the US relatives, but if you have their real interests at heart, I think you should not make them read this, instead your time might be better spent in pondering for yourself some of the very real weaknesses of the case we heard at Zeist, perhaps following William of Occam's advice.

2.) I beg you not to encourage 'your' members to hate. The heading "EVOLUTION OF EVIL - Premiering 16th July 2015 on The American Heroes Channel" ... suggests incitement to hate. We have experienced the outpourings of some unfortunate relatives in the form of hatred, hatred for Arabs, hatred for Gaddafi, even hatred for those of us who seek the truth. This is what terrorists do, they thrive on hatred. Every time someone descends to hatred, the terrorists score again, for the consequence of harbouring hatred is destruction of the personal lives of those who harbour it.

No man is simply "AN EVOLUTION OF EVIL" we are all flawed and imperfect, but capable of both good acts and evil ones. I can tell you that Gaddafi was both inscrutable and cyclothymic, but in the running of his country he seems, albeit at terrible cost to his people, to have been rather more effective than the chaos that our Western actions have triggered. following his murder. I fear we do not have the luxury of simplification offered by describing individuals as either pure good or pure evil. The world and we ourselves are far more complex than that.

Of course those who do evil acts like Lockerbie must be brought before the law and agreed punishments administered if found guilty through valid evidence, but you might care to remember the axioms "judge not, that ye be not judged", or perhaps " Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee".

[The following are two emailed responses from Mr Duggan:]

1. Dr Swire: there is nothing new in your lengthy email, and no evidence to support any of your theories. Theories are not admissible in court without some proof.

Regards,

Frank Duggan

2. Dr Swire: attached is a review of Hurley's book which recounts the Channel 4 panel discussion we had in London. The moderator was certainly not impartial, but I was able to explain the warnings you have been talking about for 25 years. I would also note that you were defending the Libyans at this point, before the trial and before you had heard any evidence in court. It is not true that you went into that court with an open mind, and there are other family members who recall conversations with you as to the innocence of the Libyans. One family member said that you had all the arguments that had been prepared by Prof Black, who maintains to this day that no court would find the Libyans guilty.

Regards,

Frank Duggan

https://books.google.com/books?id=0TcZMd9TioYC&pg=PA390&dq=Frank+Duggan+Pan+Am+103&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIpoTkwNTixgIVDD4-Ch1Wwwe_#v=onepage&q=Frank%20Duggan%20Pan%20Am%20103&f=false

Every delaying tactic in the book

[What follows is an item posted on this blog on this date seven years ago:]

Justice delayed…

More than a year has passed since the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred Abdelbaset Megrahi’s case back to the Criminal Appeal Court on the basis that his conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice. More than nine months have passed since the first procedural hearing in the new appeal was held. More than six months have passed since the appellant’s full written grounds of appeal were lodged with the court.

Why has no date yet been fixed for the hearing of the appeal? Why does it now seem impossible that the appeal can be heard and a judgement delivered by the twentieth anniversary of the disaster on 21 December 2008?

The answer is simple: because the Crown, in the person of the Lord Advocate, and the United Kingdom Government, in the person of the Advocate General for Scotland, have been resorting to every delaying tactic in the book (and where a particular obstructionist wheeze isn’t in the book, have been asking the court to rewrite the book to insert it). The judges on a number of occasions have expressed disquiet at the Crown’s dilatoriness; but have so far done nothing meaningful to curb it. This must end. The delay is becoming scandalous. The reputation of Scotland’s criminal justice system is being further tarnished in the eyes of the world.

And all the while a man languishes in Greenock Prison. I have never made any bones about my view that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands is the worst Scottish miscarriage of justice in the past one hundred years, indeed since the conviction of Oscar Slater. But even those who do not share my views, or who are neutral on the issue, would surely accept that the delay in bringing the new appeal to a hearing on the merits is beginning to look cruel and unconscionable.

It is up to the judges to start cracking the whip. The words of Francis Bacon in his essay “Of Judicature” are perhaps worth recalling:

“A judge ought to prepare his way to a just sentence, as God useth to prepare his way, by raising valleys and taking down hills: so when there appeareth on either side an high hand, … cunning advantages taken, combination, power, … then is the virtue of a judge seen, to make inequality equal; that he may plant his judgment as upon an even ground.”

[RB: It is perhaps worth pointing out that the delay that I was complaining about above followed the delay of three years and nine months between the submission of the application to the SCCRC and the Commission’s delivery of its decision.]

The Gauci "identifications"

[What follows is the text of a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2008:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has called in an American psychologist to help clear his name.

Abdelbasset al Megrahi, 56, claims an identity parade line-up was unfair and has challenged the way photos were shown to potential witnesses.

Prof Steve Clark, of the University of California, is said to be an expert on identification procedures.

At Edinburgh's Court of Criminal Appeal, Megrahi's defence team sought the right to show photos to Prof Clark.

Margaret Scott QC said it was "unprecedented" that she should have to ask judges to order the handover of the original photos.

Appeal judges are expected to hear further legal argument on the question next month.

Megrahi is currently serving life in jail for the 1988 atrocity, in which 270 people died.

He lost one appeal against conviction but the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, told the courts to look at the case again.

Megrahi's second attempt to overturn his conviction has led to a number of legal wrangles - including a long-running row about whether defence lawyers should be allowed access to secret documents.

[RB: The report that Professor Clark produced can be read here. A similar report by Professor Tim Valentine can be read here. The views on the case of the doyenne of the psychologists of eyewitness memory, Professor Elizabeth Loftus, can be read here. Their unanimous conclusion is that the “identification” of Megrahi by Tony Gauci is valueless.]

FIRM acts on call for Pan Am 103 public inquiry

[This is the headline over an article published on this date in 2009 on the website of Scottish lawyers’ magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

The letter below was sent to Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill today, following the FIRM’s online poll in which 86% of respondents called for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie airliner event:

15 July 2009

Kenny MacAskill

Cabinet Secretary for Justice

The Scottish Parliament

Edinburgh EH99 1SP

Dear Mr MacAskill,

FIRM magazine

The Firm magazine recently ran a poll of its readers, which found that 86% of respondents supported a public inquiry into the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.

A copy of the news story which ran in the July issue of the Magazine is appended below for your reference, and a copy of the magazine is enclosed.

I can add that solicitors and advocates, in addition to the general public, have frequently and consistently expressed to me their despair at the damage that has been inflicted upon the law of Scotland by this case. No doubt you are already aware that the Scots legal system was once rightly regarded as among the best and most effective in the world. Regardless of its present efficacy, it is now regarded both domestically and (especially) internationally as an embarrassment, principally because of the damning reflection cast upon it by the passage of the Lockerbie case through it.

On behalf of the readers of The Firm -- including over 10,000 solicitors and 500 or so advocates who wish to see the reputation of Scots law restored and be certain the legal system they work for and within is a source of pride to them, and not of shame -- I am duty bound to ask for you to address their wishes for a public inquiry. Like them, it is my fervent wish that the legal system of Scotland, and those who work within it, can be certain that the law which is applied in their name is done so honourably and with full accountability, devoid of the stains and shadows that this case has thrown upon it.

The reason this case refuses to go away is simply because the answers provided by the judicial process have failed to satisfy the public interest on one hand, and those directly affected by these events on the other. Whilst one bad case cannot be fairly described as representative of all that goes on in Scots law, that one bad case is nevertheless a valid reflection of what our legal system is capable of achieving, and there is a large constituency of the public who are not satisfied with that conclusion.

For my own part, I will simply state that the first step to repairing any damage is to understand how it was caused. A full inquiry may begin to shed the necessary light that will allow repairs to be effected. In the interests of accountability, and on behalf of the readers of The Firm, I ask you to let me have your response and proposals for action.

As a journalist, I constantly remind myself of the words of the great Edward R Murrow, who noted that just because my voice is amplified to the degree that it reaches from one end of the country to the other, it does not confer upon me greater wisdom or understanding than I possessed when it reached only from one end of the bar to the other. What my journalistic reach does impose upon me however, is a correspondingly amplified duty to use my free speech responsibly, and I therefore cannot in good conscience offer any voice to the readers of The Firm if I do not take forward their legitimate concerns and, where necessary, act upon them. If I felt otherwise, I should simply publish cartoons instead. Justice must be done, even tho’ the heavens may fall. If you and I cannot do our best to achieve that, then both of us are in the wrong jobs.

I, and those 86%, look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

STEVEN RAEBURN

Editor

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

A poll of solicitors in Scotland calling for a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie incident has received Parliamentary backing and international support.

86% of respondents to the poll which ran during Abdelbaset Ali Mohmad al-Megrahi’s appeal called for the inquiry, which has been blocked since Labour took office in 1997, despite their pledge to hold one whilst in opposition.

Christine Grahame MSP, who has met Mr Megrahi several times in jail said there were many unanswered questions.

“I have said that if the appeal by Mr Megrahi is dropped then I would want to see a full public inquiry. That remains my position. I believe that Mr Megrahi should not have been convicted on the evidence that was led against him and that there appears to have been a miscarriage of justice. A public inquiry would go a considerable way towards resolving that if Mr Megrahi drops his appeal to make himself eligible for transfer back to Libya under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement signed by the UK Government.”

The UN appointed special observer Hans Kochler said the poll result was “encouraging,” and accused authorities of a scandalous cover up.

“A full public inquiry is long overdue. Since April 2002 I have repeatedly called for such a measure,” he said.

“So far, neither the British nor Scottish political and judicial establishment has shown any genuine interest in finding out the real causes of the Lockerbie tragedy. To the contrary, the course of justice has been obstructed in numerous instances. It is high time that the public demands its right to full and uncensored disclosure of all the evidence of the Lockerbie case and all facts of the scandalous cover-up and delaying tactics we have seen since the first appeal decision.”

Professor Robert Black, instrumental in brokering the Zeist trial said he “wholeheartedly supports the call for a public enquiry into the Lockerbie case.”

“There are so many grave concerns about the trial and the verdict that it is difficult to see how the Scottish criminal justice system can have its legitimacy restored without one,” he added.

Malta airport security explored at Lockerbie trial

[What follows is TheLockerbieTrial.com’s brief report on the proceedings at Camp Zeist on this date in 2000:]

Air Malta Manager Testifies

Wilfred Borg, Crown witness number 708, who was general manager for ground operations at Malta's Luqa Airport admitted that an uncleared suitcase could, theoretically, have been placed on board a flight leaving Malta.

Borg though, denied that records of unidentified luggage produced by the Crown indicated a violation of safety procedures.

The Crown will attempt to prove that the bomb suitcase was inserted in the baggage system at Luqa airport and sent as unaccompanied baggage to Frankfurt.

Borg was questioned by Advocate Depute, Alan Turnbull QC, about safety operations at Malta's Luqa airport.

Turnbull highlighted what he claimed were discrepancies in Air Malta's baggage loading logs on a number of flights in 1988 and asked Borg whether a person familiar with security procedures and access to loading areas could have breached his staff's safety checks.

Turnbull asked: "Would it have been possible in 1988 for someone with that knowledge and that access to deliberately have circumvented the checks you had in place?"

"Anything is possible. Whether it was probable is a different story," said Borg, who added that in every case an aircraft's captain had to make the final call on the safety of the aircraft.

Wilfred Borg is expected to continue his evidence on Monday.

[An accompanying commentary on the same website reads as follows:]

Airport Security Revelations

Luqa Airport became the focus of attention for investigators, much later then the original Maltese connection, which was around clothing found at Lockerbie.

Certain assumptions have been made regarding Malta's Luqa airport. It has been assumed by many that because Malta is a small country then it follows that their airport security would be lax.

The Crown will undoubtedly contend that all was not well with security at Luqa airport and this will assist their assertions that the suitcase containing the bomb was inserted at this point.

However our investigations have uncovered startling new facts which may counter this part of the Crown theory.

The arguments that may be used to counter this claim have come from a source which will surprise many. It comes directly from the US Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA.

In 1987, a year before the bombing of Pan Am 103, Pan Am made it known that they wished to operate a cargo service to and from Malta. In any instances, where an American flag carrier, such as Pan Am, makes it known that they wish to fly into an airport for the first time, the FAA is mandated to carry out inspections and assessments of the airport concerned.

Officials of the FAA carried out such an assessment of Luqa airport and their report will do nothing to further the Crown's case regarding lax security.

Sources from within the FAA, who spoke on condition of anonymity, have informed us that if they [the FAA] scored airports on a point system giving points out of ten, then their assessment of Luqa Airport would be 9 out of 10.

With the exception of some administrative recommendations, the FAA gave Luqa airport, Malta, a clean bill of health.

Hardly the picture of a small third world countries airport with poor security. Anyone familiar with Luqa airport during that period would know that armed soldiers from the Maltese armed forces carried out much of the security at the airport.

These revelations may have come to light earlier (we learned of this 3 months ago) had the FAA been more careful about their archived documentation.

Those same sources within the FAA confirmed to us that during 1993/1994, the FAA destroyed many assessments and inspections of European airports, covering the 1980s, including the report compiled on Luqa airport. Our source has stated that this destruction was done in error and not in any way to thwart the Lockerbie investigation. The Government of Malta was given a copy of the FAA report.

We make no assertions that the FAA, by destroying these reports, acted in any way maliciously and our sources within the FAA have spoken of the quality and level of co-operation extended to those involved in the legal preparations for this trial.

While the issues under examination today are specific to Air Malta and not to Luqa airport, there is undoubtedly a connection with regards to overall security procedures.

Coming hard on the heels of the debacle over Maltese witnesses refusing to testify, these latest revelations will hardly be good news for the Crown.

[The report of the day’s proceedings on the BBC News website can be read here.]