Fhimah speaks about his acquittal and Megrahi's conviction

[What follows is the text of a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2001:]

The Libyan man acquitted of murder in the Lockerbie trial has been speaking out in his home town of Tripoli.

Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah told the Arabic satellite TV channel Al-Jazeera that he viewed his release as a gift from God.

He said he was convinced that his co-defendant, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, will soon be released as well.

Chanting "they've brought back Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, and we will bring back Abdelbaset," Libyans attending organised rallies do not feel justice was done.

They have been celebrating the return of their acquitted citizen, but they say the convicted Lockerbie bomber Al Megrahi is also innocent.

Speaking to a crowd of well-wishers at his house in Tripoli, Mr Fhimah said he sees his acquittal as God's will, and feels no gratitude to the court that freed him.

"If it had not been a gift from God, I would have stayed with my colleague. I would have continued the time with him and returned here together," he says.

"It's only a matter of time. Soon Abdelbaset will come back home," he adds.

At a politically charged sermon for the faithful, at Tripoli's main mosque, the prayer leader told worshippers that the Lockerbie verdict was unjust and had no legal basis.

And all over Tripoli, the message is the same: Libyans expect both their citizens to be acquitted.

They do not believe the guilty verdict was free from western political pressure and cannot accept that one of their people could have murdered 270 people in cold blood.

Al Megrahi's father says that if anyone has an insight into the mind of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, he does.

"I know my son 100%. I swear to God, if I thought my son had planned this, I would have handed him over to justice myself," he says.

"It's a political issue. They're looking for something to blame him for, the Americans and I don't know who else," he added.

Unsafe and unsatisfactory

[On this date in 2001, I contributed to TheLockerbieTrial.com an article headed The Reasons for Convicting Megrahi. It reads as follows:]

In paragraph 89 of the Opinion of the Court the judges say: “We are aware that in relation to certain aspects of the case there are a number of uncertainties and qualifications.  We are also aware that there is a danger that by selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which might not fit, it is possible to read into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern or conclusion which is not really justified.”

The danger may have been recognised.  But it has not been avoided.

i.    Who was the purchaser of the clothing and when did he do it?

The judges held it proved (a) that it was Megrahi who bought from Mary’s House in Malta the clothes and umbrella which were in the suitcase with the bomb and (b) that the date of purchase was 7 December 1988 (when Megrahi was on Malta) and not 23 November 1988 (when he was not).

As regards (a), the most that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, would say (either in his evidence in court or in a series of police statements) was that Megrahi “resembled a lot” the purchaser, a phrase which he equally used with reference to Abu Talb, one of those named in the special defence of incrimination lodged on behalf of Megrahi.  Gauci had also described the purchaser to the police as being six feet tall and over 50 years of age. The evidence at the trial established (i) that Megrahi is 5 feet 8 inches tall and (ii) that in late 1988 he was 36 years of age.  On this material the judges found in fact that Megrahi was the purchaser.

As regards (b), the evidence of Tony Gauci was that when the purchaser left his shop it was raining (or at least drizzling) to such an extent that his customer thought it advisable to buy an umbrella  to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence established that while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely that it had rained at all on 7 December, and if it had it would have been only a few drops, insufficient to wet the street.  On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December.

ii.    Did the bomb start from Malta?

The judges held it proved that there was a piece of unaccompanied baggage on Flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988 which was then carried on to Heathrow.  The evidence supporting that finding was a computer printout which could be interpreted to indicate that a piece of baggage went through the particular luggage coding station at Frankfurt used for baggage from KM 180 and was routed towards the feeder flight to Heathrow, at a time consistent with it’s having been offloaded from KM 180.  Against this, the evidence from Malta Airport was to the effect that there was no unaccompanied bag on that flight to Frankfurt.  All luggage on that flight was accounted for.  The number of bags loaded into the hold matched the number of bags checked in (and subsequently collected) by the passengers on the aircraft.  The court nevertheless held it proved that there had been a piece of unaccompanied baggage on Flight KM 180.

iii.   Where did the fragment of timer come from?

An important link to Libya in the evidence was a fragment of circuit board from a MST-13 timer manufactured by MeBo.  Timers of this model were supplied predominantly to Libya (though a few did go elsewhere, such as to the Stasi in East Germany).  This fragment is also important since it is the only piece of evidence that indicates that the Lockerbie bomb was detonated by a stand-alone timing mechanism, as distinct from a short-term timer triggered by a barometric device, of the type displayed in the bombs and equipment found at Neuss in the Autumn Leaves operation.  The provenance of this vitally important piece of evidence was challenged by the defence, and in their written Opinion the judges accept that in a number of respects this fragment, for reasons that were never satisfactorily explained, was not dealt with by the investigators and forensic scientists in the same way as other pieces of electronic circuit board (of which there were many).  The judges say that they are satisfied that there is no sinister reason for the differential treatment.  But they do not find it necessary enlighten us regarding the reasons for their satisfaction.

These are some of the many factors that lead me to be astonished that the court found itself able to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Megrahi, and which equally convince me that his conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory.

US Libya intervention "smart power at its best"

[What follows is excerpted from an article by attorney Bruce Fein headlined Hillary Clinton’s appalling enthusiasm for war that was published in yesterday’s edition of The Washington Times:]

Hillary Clinton exhibits an appalling enthusiasm for United States wars not in self-defense, i.e., legalized murders on an industrial scale that create enemies while destroying our liberties and prosperity at home.

To William Tecumseh Sherman, war was “hell.” To Abraham Lincoln, war was a “scourge.” But to Hillary Clinton, war is a coveted instrument of foreign policy in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

If she is elected president, the United States will be fighting gratuitous wars every hour of every day of her presidency. That should give pause. (...)

Despite such hallowed wisdom, Mrs. Clinton has supported every war initiated by the United States not in self-defense for more than twenty three years since she first occupied the White House as first lady: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Somalia, and international terrorism generally. (...)

In 2011, then-Secretary of State Clinton championed a “humanitarian” war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi after he had abandoned WMD, Libya had been removed as a state sponsor of terrorism, he had handsomely compensated the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, and he posed no threat to the United States. She has fiercely defended the war as “smart power at its best.”

Megrahi book published

On this date in 2012 John Ashton’s book Megrahi: You are my Jury was published by Birlinn. Reviews of the book on the UK Amazon website can be read here. Reviews on the US Amazon website can be read here. John Ashton’s website can be found here.

Libya may compensate Lockerbie families

[This is the headline over a report published on the website of The Guardian on this date in 2001, the day after the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi and the acquittal of Lamin Fhimah. It reads as follows:]

The Libyan government is today considering compensation payments to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing, as a group representing the British families of those who died in the tragedy gathered in London to press for an independent public inquiry.

The Libyan ambassador to London, Mohammed al-Zwai, said today that his government will consider both compensation payments and agreements reached with the UN security council if Abdel Baset al-Megrahi's appeal against his conviction for the bombing fails. The security council agreements include the requirement that Libya offer compensation and accept responsibility for the bombing.

Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, was sentenced yesterday to life imprisonment for the murder of 270 people in the 1988 bomb attack on Pan Am flight 103. Scottish judges accepted that he was a special agent for the Libyan government, thereby implicating Tripoli in the attack. According to Libyan television reports, Megrahi will lodge an appeal against his conviction within 14 days.

Mr Zwai's comments seem to contradict statements out of Tripoli that the Libyan government bears no responsibility for the bombing. Libyan foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam has insisted that Tripoli will never accept responsibility for the attack.

Colonel Muammar Gadafy's government has not been indicted in the bombing, but the Lockerbie blast was alleged to have been committed to "further the purposes" of Libyan intelligence. The prosecution has charged that the attack was carried out to avenge the US bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi in 1986.

Following the verdict, Libya called for an end to the UN sanctions imposed after the Lockerbie bombing.

"The sanctions imposed on Libya must be lifted completely because the Lockerbie case was used as a pretext to delay their lifting," foreign ministry spokesman Hassouna Chiouch told a news conference. "Now that the court has ended the case, the sanctions must be lifted completely."

"We extend our hand to the United States to build relations based on mutual respect and benefit for the two parties," Chiouch said. "Now that the Lockerbie case is behind, we look forward with interest to improving our relations with the United States in the interests of both countries and of peace worldwide."

Foreign secretary Robin Cook said Britain and the United States both agreed Libya "must" fulfil the UN security council resolutions before the sanctions will be lifted. Mr Cook stressed that Libya is barred from offering "no fault" compensation.

"Libya has in the past said it would pay compensation if there was a guilty verdict. There has been a guilty verdict, and a guilty verdict against a very senior official of Libyan intelligence," said Mr Cook.

"Libya can't walk away from their responsibility for the act of their official," he added.

In Washington, President George Bush praised the conviction and said the Libyan government must take responsibility for the attack. After less than two weeks in office, the Bush administration faces a major foreign policy decision on how hard to squeeze Libya.

State department spokesman Richard Boucher laid down four demands with which the United States said Libya must comply.

"That means revealing everything they know about the Lockerbie bombing, paying reparations, a clear declaration acknowledging responsibility for the actions of the Libyan officials and clear unambiguous actions which demonstrate the Libyan government understands its responsibilities," Mr Boucher said.

Meanwhile, the British families of those who died in the Lockerbie bombing are gathering in London today to press for further inquiries into the disaster. The group, which includes high profile campaigners Dr Jim Swire and the Rev John Mosey, will call for an independent public inquiry into unanswered questions surrounding the circumstances of the bombing.

The families have always maintained they want a public inquiry into issues not fully explored in the Fatal Accident Inquiry which was completed in 1991 or in the criminal trial which ended yesterday.

Most crucially, they want the failure of the intelligence services and the aviation authorities to stop the bomb getting on board to come under the spotlight.

Several bomb warnings were circulating at the time of the disaster including the so-called 'Toshiba warning' which advised that a bomb hidden inside a radio cassette recorder could be smuggled on to a plane. The bomb which blew up the Pan Am flight was hidden inside a Toshiba radio cassette recorder.

Previous calls for a public inquiry have been rejected on the grounds that such a move would prejudice the long-awaited criminal trial. Now that the trial is finally over, the families will argue that there are no grounds for rejecting a public inquiry.

Scotland's top law officer said today that insufficient evidence exists at this time for more prosecutions over the Lockerbie bombing. Colin Boyd QC, the Lord Advocate, added that it is clear that the man convicted yesterday for the outrage was not acting alone.

Following the announcement of the verdict yesterday, Al-Amin Khalifah Fhimah, Megrahi's co-accused who was acquitted, left the court at Camp Zeist, a former US military base in the Netherlands, a free man.

Taken to a safe house last night, he was expected to leave the Netherlands for home today. The time and place of his departure are closely guarded secrets. Megrahi remained in the specially built prison where he and Fhimah had been held since Tripoli handed them over in April 1999.

An official source said Megrahi's mother had been taken to a Tripoli hospital after collapsing, overwhelmed by news that her son had been jailed for life.

An appeal would be heard at Camp Zeist, except in the highly unlikely event Megrahi chose not to be present - in which case it would be held in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh.

And under the terms of the groundbreaking deal under which the Libyans were brought for trial, Megrahi stays at the camp until the entire legal process is complete.

Any appeal would take months to get under way, legal experts say. There is no automatic right of appeal in Scottish law, and that alone complicates and delays the process significantly.

Megrahi injustice unrectified after fifteen years

Fifteen years ago today the Scottish Court at Camp Zeist convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi of the murder of 270 people in the Lockerbie disaster (and acquitted Lamin Fhimah). The unjustness of the Megrahi conviction has been demonstrated in two of the earliest postings on this blog: see Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result and The SCCRC Decision. The conviction has also since then been fatally undermined by John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury and Dr Morag Kerr’s Adequately Explained by Stupidity?

Maltese Lockerbie witness involved in unfolding scandal

[This is the headline over a report published in The Malta Financial & Business Times on this date in 2002. It reads as follows:]

Shopkeeper Tony Gauci certainly got more than he had bargained for when he made a sale to a certain Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi back in 1988. Now, UK papers are claiming, he might be the downfall of the Lockerbie trial prosecution’s case.

The Maltese Lockerbie key witness, whose evidence had helped to convict the Lockerbie bomber, is under a bright spotlight after having disclosed he had enjoyed lavish trips to Scotland with top notch hospitality organised by police officers.

Secret tape recordings obtained by the UK’s The Mail on Sunday, reveal witness Tony Gauci boasting about being taken from his home in Malta to Scotland by police for fishing, hill walking and bird-watching trips.

The Mail on Sunday had been given the tapes by a Scottish undercover investigator who was recently in Malta and secretly taped conversations with Gauci, owner of now famous Mary's House clothes shop in Sliema, and a Strathclyde Police officer apparently based in Malta.

On the tapes Gauci claimed he had been taken to Scotland by police on five or six occasions since the bombing.

Some weeks after the plane fell on the small Scottish town, he says he was taken there to be shown the devastation - a highly unusual move as the Scottish justice system frowns upon taking a witness to a crime scene before a trial.

Gauci also said that the hospitality of the Scottish police was also extended to four other members of his family and on the tapes he talks of being taken into the mountains, visiting the Aviemore ski resort, fly-fishing for salmon and bird-watching.

Furthermore, on at least one occasion he has stayed at the luxury GBP150 a night Hilton Hotel in Glasgow.

Speaking to this newspaper on Monday, The Mail on Sunday said it believes that Gauci is currently in Scotland under an assumed name, as a trip was being prepared for him when the investigator, a former detective, left Malta two weeks ago.

Meanwhile, MP Tam Dalyell, said yesterday he wanted the government to respond to reports that police had organised holidays for Gauci in Scotland.

Robert Black, professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, said the matter of Gauci's trips would now have to be fully investigated during Megrahi's appeal.

Gauci's contribution to the trial was central to Megrahi's conviction. His co-accused, Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, walked free while Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a minimum recommendation of 20 years.

The key difference was that in Fhimah's case, no credible witness existed to give a firsthand account of incriminating conduct.

The remains of clothes bought from Gauci's shop were found in the suitcase containing the bomb and the shopkeeper is the only person to have positively identified Megrahi, linking him directly to the outrage.

FBI document shows Lockerbie case flaws

[This is the headline over a report that appeared on the website of The Independent on this date in 1995 and in the print edition of the newspaper the following day. It reads as follows:]

The case against two alleged Libyan bombers is ‘crumbling to dust’ John Arlidge reports

A secret FBI document has demolished a key part of the case against the two Libyans accused of the Lockerbie bombing. The internal US Government document was leaked to The Independent on the eve of a House of Commons debate on claims that Iran, not Libya, ordered the terrorist attack.

The five-page official briefing paper, marked "Director FBI/Priority", reveals that vital prosecution evidence that the airline bomb began its fatal journey in Malta is flawed. Its release, which follows the disclosure last week that American intelligence sources blamed Iran, not Libya, for the terrorist attack, will increase the pressure on investigating authorities to re-open the case against Tehran.

In the House of Commons on Wednesday, Tam Dalyell, the Labour MP, will call on the Government to establish an independent commission of inquiry to investigate Iranian links with the atrocity. He will also urge Douglas Hurd, the Foreign Secretary, to approve a trial of the Libyan suspects in an international court.

The FBI paper challenges prosecution evidence that the bomb, which destroyed Pan Am Flight 103 on 21 December 1988 and killed 270 people, was loaded on to the aircraft in Frankfurt after arriving in Germany on a flight from Malta.

During the Lockerbie investigation, detectives from Britain, the United States and Germany examined computer records at Frankfurt airport which, they said, revealed that an unaccompanied suitcase, thought to have contained the bomb, arrived on 21 December on Air Malta Flight KM 180 before being transferred on to Flight 103. The evidence led Britain and the US to charge two Libyan Arab Airlines employees who worked in Malta, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah and Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi, with putting the suitcase on Flight KM 180.

The Frankfurt airport baggage records are vital to the prosecution case because they provide the only direct link between Malta and Germany and, therefore, between the suspects and the unaccompanied bag.

But the FBI briefing paper discloses that there is no documentary evidence that the suitcase was on Flight KM 180. The only link with the Maltese flight was that some transfer baggage from KM 180 had been unloaded at the luggage processing point where the suitcase was first sighted. It says: "There is no concrete indication that any piece of luggage was unloaded from Air Malta 180, sent through the luggage routing system at Frankfurt airport, and then loaded on board Pan Am 103."

The document says the baggage records are "misleading" and that the bomb suitcase could have come from another flight or was simply a "rogue bag inserted into the system".

Last week, BBC Radio's File on Four and The Independent revealed that vital prosecution eye-witness evidence from a Maltese shop-owner, which links one of the Libyan suspects to the bomb bag, was unreliable.

Lawyers for the pair said yesterday that the latest revelations, coupled with the American intelligence leak, called into question the prosecution case. One solicitor said: "The eye-witness statements in Malta and the documentary evidence from Frankfurt are absolutely crucial to the case against the two accused. We know that the eye-witness evidence is flawed. We now also know that the same is true of the documentary evidence. This case is crumbling to dust - raising fundamental questions as to why it was brought in the first place."

Fhimah, 38, and Al-Megrahi, 42, who deny the charges against them, have refused to surrender for trial in the UK or the US, but have offered to go to court in the Netherlands. The Government has rejected the offer.

Lockerbie: A Sour Pill for Libya

[This is the headline over an article by Ashur Shamis originally published on the BBC News website on this date in 2002 and reproduced on the libya-watanona.com website. It reads as follows:]

The official Libyan media is paying only cursory attention to the Lockerbie appeal currently being heard at camp Zeist.

At best reports on the appeal come fourth on the news bulletins.

Considering how outspoken he has been in the past about Lockerbie, Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's current silence is startling.

This could be because the regime is not confident of a favourable outcome in the appeal against the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

Libya is hoping to draw the whole Lockerbie affair to a close. Tripoli is reported to have offered to pay billions of dollars in compensation to the families of the victims of the bombing, in return for closure on the issue.

United States and British officials, reported to be negotiating a settlement with representatives of the Libyan regime, are said to be pressing Libya for a settlement before the appeal is concluded.

Whichever way the appeal goes, Libya stands to lose financially and politically, or both.

'Ordinary Libyans powerless'

Like the government, most Libyans just want to see the Lockerbie affair concluded.

Libyans are well accustomed to the whimsical changes of direction of their leader, and to being powerless in the face of this whimsy.

Most Libyans are more likely to complain about the hardship of the dry season and traffic chaos in the cities.

Colonel Gaddafi's supporters still insist he is the arch-enemy of American imperialism and international Zionism.

However, most Libyans sympathise with al-Megrahi and his family, seeing them as hapless victims of a regime, which, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, adopted terrorism as a state policy.

The bombing of the Pan Am and French UTA flights, and the bombing of a Berlin discotheque - all acts in which the Gaddafi regime is at least implicated - are widely seen as elements of the Libyan leader's past coming back to haunt him.

But Libyans do worry about the billions of dollars their country will have to pay out in compensation.

Eventually, it is they who will end up suffering lower currency exchanged rates, reduced government salaries, higher prices and taxes, and run-down public services.

'Premature claims of victory'

Back in 1998, when Mr Gaddafi declared that he was ready to hand over the two Libyans suspected of the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the Netherlands, he sounded triumphant.

It took the Libyan leader eight years to reach this point - a period during which Libya came under an international air embargo and punitive US economic sanctions.

The country's economy was set back 10 years, its infrastructure deteriorated, and it became more and more isolated internationally.

When he finally did hand over the suspects in 1999, Colonel Gaddafi claimed credit domestically for defying the US by not handing over al-Megrahi and al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah for eight years, and he claimed credit internationally for allowing a trial to proceed by handing them over.

Deal struck?

Reports persist that a deal was struck with Colonel Gaddafi, though Western officials deny this.

It is said that he handed over the two Lockerbie suspects on condition that no other Libyan officials, including himself, would be dragged into the investigation or the trial.

At the time, the Libyan media hailed the outcome a victory and praised the virtues of the Scottish judiciary.

However, not only did the Lockerbie trial deliver an unexpected verdict in January 2001, but it also dragged out the conclusion of the affair.

One of the defendants was acquitted while al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence operative in Malta, was convicted of committing the atrocity and sentenced to life imprisonment.

'Ambiguous verdict'

This verdict gave everyone some cause for celebration. The families of the victims and the US and UK governments saw some form of justice being done.

However, the three Scottish judges freely admitted to "uncertainties and qualifications" in the evidence brought before them.

But, having considered the evidence as a whole, they decided it formed a convincing pattern, leaving them with no "reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused".

This ambiguity in the judgement allowed Libya to argue that al-Megrahi was a "political hostage" and a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

The air travel embargo was lifted, but Libya continues to languish under damaging American trade sanctions.

The victory claimed by Colonel Gaddafi in 1999 is now looking very hollow indeed.

Lockerbie and the claims of Magnus Linklater

[On 6 January 2016 an article by Magnus Linklater headlined We can be confident that the Scottish prosecutors got the right man appeared in the Scottish Review. On 23 January John Ashton responded to that article on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website. In The Cafe section of today’s issue of the Scottish Review John Ashton and Dr Morag Kerr reply as follows to the Linklater article:]

Magnus Linklater’s article on the Lockerbie case 'We can be confident that the Scottish prosecutors got the right man’ (6 January) makes a number of inaccurate claims, including the suggestion that, when writing the biography of the alleged bomber, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, I deliberately suppressed evidence that was unfavourable to Mr Megrahi.

This was that on the morning of the bombing, and on a couple of occasions prior, he shared a flight with Libyan Abouagela Masud, who was alleged by a Libyan witness to be the bomb-maker responsible for the La Belle night club bombing in Berlin in 1986. This particular flight was from Malta, which the prosecution alleged was the launchpad for the bomb.

The book examined the evidence used to convict Mr Megrahi. Like the Scottish Police and prosecutors, I was unaware of Mr Masud’s alleged connection to La Belle until told of it by filmmaker Ken Dornstein well over three years after completing that book. Mr Linklater could easily have checked this with me before defaming me, but chose not to. How, I wonder, could I have suppressed something of which I had no knowledge? My book did not dodge the fact that Mr Megrahi was connected to some unsavoury characters within the Gaddafi regime, including the alleged mastermind of La Belle and Said Rashid, yet Mr Linklater fails to mention this, preferring instead to accuse me of burying inconvenient truths.

As anyone who has followed the Megrahi case knows, it is the Crown that suppressed important evidence – lots of it – all of which was helpful to Mr Megrahi. On this scandal Mr Linklater has consistently remained mute.

He also suggests that my claim that Megrahi suffered a miscarriage of justice is based on speculation, rather than hard evidence. Had he read my book properly, he would see that all of its key claims are founded on hard evidence, the bulk of which was from the Crown’s own files. The same goes for Dr Morag Kerr’s book Adequately Explained by Stupidity?, which he breezily dismisses, without naming it, as having 'no concrete evidence’ to back it up.

He implies that I believe Mr Megrahi was the victim of a giant conspiracy in which judges and lawyers knowingly participated in a miscarriage of justice. As I have repeatedly made clear, including to Mr Linklater, I hold no such belief. If there was a conspiracy to frame Mr Megrahi – a big if, but by no means impossible – I don’t believe it would have involved the knowing participation of the Scottish criminal justice system.

Mr Linklater tells us: 'I like the famous Sherlock Holmes quote: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth"', yet applies it selectively. Hard evidence that has emerged since Mr Megrahi was convicted demonstrates the impossibility of the main planks of the prosecution case: that Mr Megrahi bought the clothes for the bomb suitcase from a Maltese shop a fortnight before the attack; that the fragment of bomb timer found at Lockerbie matched timers supplied to Libya by Swiss firm Mebo; and that the bomb began its journey In Malta. In contrast, the only evidence to support the conviction in 15 years is that concerning Abouagela Masud.

Two years ago I wrote an open letter to Mr Linklater, which posed a number of questions. He promised to reply, but never did. Maybe he would like to in the Scottish Review – he has had plenty of time to think of answers.

John Ashton

I’m getting more than slightly tired of Magnus Linklater’s repeated attacks on me and my Lockerbie book (Adequately Explained by Stupidity?, Matador 2013). He uses his entrée as a journalist to disparage and dismiss my work over multiple platforms, without at any point addressing the substance of what I have written. His latest sally is perhaps the weakest to date: '...suggestions that Heathrow Airport was where the bomb was loaded again have no concrete evidence to back them; an entire book has been written on the Heathrow connection, but nothing has emerged to give it the kind of validity which would stand up in court'. (In a supreme discourtesy he doesn’t even cite my book by name to allow readers to access it and judge for themselves.)

My book is stuffed to the eyeballs with concrete evidence that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow. I have repeatedly begged proponents of Megrahi’s guilt to explain to me in what way I am mistaken or what inferences I have missed that might admit of any plausible scenario whatsoever whereby the bomb suitcase might have flown in on the feeder flight. Nobody has answered me. I have specifically begged Mr Linklater in person to address this point, but he has ignored me in favour of yet another sally in the press denouncing 'conspiracy theorists'.

He repeatedly states that no evidence has emerged that would stand up in court. I am quite certain that the analysis I present would stand up in court, as would other evidence being highlighted by other interested parties. The problem is that it has not come before any court. Attempts to bring it to court have been mounted and indeed are ongoing, but so far these have been thwarted by procedural obstacles.

It is not enough simply to hand-wave away a detailed, evidence-based and non-conspiratorial dissection of the Lockerbie evidence with vague platitudes about 'nothing has emerged to give it ... validity'. What does he expect to emerge, from where and from whom, before he will do me the courtesy of actually addressing the substance of my thesis? One might imagine that it would be of some interest to a journalist who repeatedly invokes the name of the respected Sunday Times Insight series, but apparently not.

If, as I contend, detailed and logical analysis of the evidence gathered at Lockerbie (with no allegations of fabrication, substitution, evidence-planting, corruption, conspiracy or deliberate malpractice) demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not Malta, this flips the entire 'was Megrahi guilty?' conundrum on its head. Rather than placing him at the scene of the crime, it provides him with a rock-solid alibi.

Ken Dornstein’s work, which impresses Mr Linklater so profoundly, relies absolutely and fundamentally on the unexamined assumption that the Lockerbie bomb was introduced at Malta. If it wasn’t, then he might as well produce eye-witness evidence that Elvis was checking in for a flight at Luqa airport that morning for all the relevance it would have. It doesn’t matter if Megrahi knew, or travelled with, or was related to any number of rank bad guys implicated in unrelated atrocities – if the scene of the crime that day was a thousand miles away, he didn’t do it. Worse still, the entire multi-million-pound Lockerbie investigation was up a gum tree from its earliest weeks, and due to its failure to investigate the real scene of the crime we simply have no idea who carried out the atrocity.

I challenge Mr Linklater to put up or shut up. To explain in detail where he thinks the mistakes or omissions are in my analysis that invalidate my conclusion that the bomb suitcase was already in the container an hour before the flight from Frankfurt landed, or to refrain from disparaging my work and myself in print.

Morag Kerr