Saturday 21 May 2016

Megrahi case "example of gross prosecutorial misconduct"

[The following are a few extracts from media reports on this date in 2012, the day after Abdelbaset Megrahi’s death and the day of his funeral:]

Independent Online (South Africa):
The death of the only person convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which killed 270 people should not prevent a public inquiry into his trial, Britain’s press said on Monday.
Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi died on Sunday, almost three years after the Scottish government freed him from jail on compassionate grounds after his prostate cancer diagnosis.
Megrahi was found guilty of blowing up Pan Am flight 103 over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, which killed all 259 people on board and 11 people on the ground.
Britain’s newspapers believe that his initial conviction by a Scottish court sitting in the Netherlands in 2001 was flawed and called for an official probe.
“With so many loose ends remaining and so many questions about the original trial unresolved, the Scottish government should agree to a public inquiry into the tragedy,” said the left-leaning Independent’s editorial.
“Megrahi’s death is no reason to stop trying to get to the truth,” the newspaper added. (...)
The Guardian said Megrahi’s death removed a “running sore in relations between London and Washington” but was doubtful it would help answer questions about the initial verdict.
“One might assume that the truth about the bombing might finally emerge,” said its editorial. “But that hope could be premature.”
The liberal broadsheet said the task of rebuilding Libya after the death of president Muammar Gaddafi could hold up attempts to review any new evidence.
“Megrahi outlived his leader by seven months, but both may well have taken the truth of what happened to their grave,” it added.
“But if ever a crime of this magnitude warranted an independent review, it is this.”
Dr [Jim] Swire told The Herald: "Our lawyers are saying we have an absolute right to know who killed our loved ones and why they were not protected." (...)
Dr Swire added: "This might mean pushing for a judicial review of the UK Government's decision not to grant an independent inquiry.
"The alternative right now is for Alex Salmond to get his act together and grant an independent inquiry in Scotland.
"I am not in the mood to forgo the right to know who murdered my daughter and who knew the airport was broken into 16 hours before and decided not to do anything about it.
"I will have to take further advice on whether I could pursue this through the SCCRC. I think the next move lies with the Megrahi family."
Professor Robert Black QC – the architect of Megrahi's trial, said ministers could be persuaded to hold an independent inquiry in Scotland, or a relative of Megrahi may re-apply to the SCCRC and push for a new appeal.
Ministers' continued refusal to hold a public inquiry could be challenged as a breach of article 8, the right to a family life.
Niall McCluskey, an advocate and expert in human rights, said: "The court could declare the Government was in some way in breach of the petitioner's human rights. Judicial review is a mechanism by which they could seek to have the decision of the Government not to hold an inquiry challenged."
John Ashton, a former member of Megrahi's defence team and the author of his official biography, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, said: "He has suffered a very painful death and he has gone to his grave with the conviction hanging over him.
"I am convinced that sooner or later the conviction will be overturned."
Abdelbasset al Megrahi is being buried today. (...)
But the aftershocks from his release and death rumble on, because although Abdelbasset Al Megrahi was convicted of mass murder, no-one believes his conviction to be entirely satisfactory. Many believe Libya had nothing to do with the attack. Many fingers point to Iran and its desire to avenge the shooting down of an Iran passenger plane by an American warship a year before Pan Am 103 was bombed. (...)
Fragments of a timer and clothing, and a witness in Malta tied him to the bomb.
He was convicted after an extraordinary trial in the Netherlands but, ever since, British relatives of the dead have said they believe he was not responsible.
Megrahi always protested his innocence and began campaigning to clear his name as soon as he got to Libya.
His death does not end the controversy.
From the Now-They-Tell-Us department comes The New York Times obit of Libyan agent Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted by a special Scottish court for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. After Megrahi’s death from cancer was announced on Sunday, the Times finally acknowledged that his guilt was in serious doubt.
Last year, when the Times and other major US news outlets were manufacturing public consent for a new war against another Middle East “bad guy,” ie Muammar Gaddafi, Megrahi’s guilt was treated as flat fact. Indeed, citation of the Lockerbie bombing became the debate closer, effectively silencing anyone who raised questions about US involvement in another war for “regime change.” (...)
Gaddafi’s eventual defeat, capture and grisly murder brought no fresh doubts about the certainty of the guilt of Megrahi, who was simply called the “Lockerbie bomber.” Few eyebrows were raised even when British authorities released Libya’s former intelligence chief Moussa Koussa after asking him some Lockerbie questions.
Scotland Yard also apparently failed to notice the dog not barking when the new pro-Western Libyan government took power and released no confirmation that Gaddafi’s government indeed had sponsored the 1988 attack. After Gaddafi’s overthrow and death, the Lockerbie issue just disappeared from the news.
So, readers of The New York Times’ obituary page might have been surprised Monday if they read deep into Megrahi’s obit and discovered this summary of the case:
“The enigmatic Mr Megrahi had been the central figure of the case for decades, reviled as a terrorist but defended by many Libyans, and even some world leaders, as a victim of injustice whose trial, 12 years after the bombing, had been riddled with political overtones, memory gaps and flawed evidence.”
If you read even further, you would find this more detailed examination of the evidence:
“Investigators, while they had no direct proof, believed that the suitcase with the bomb had been fitted with routing tags for baggage handlers, put on a plane at Malta and flown to Frankfurt, where it was loaded onto a Boeing 727 feeder flight that connected to Flight 103 at London, then transferred to the doomed jetliner.
“After a three-year investigation, Mr Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan airline station manager in Malta, were indicted on mass murder charges in 1991. Libya refused to extradite them, and the United Nations imposed eight years of sanctions that cost Libya $30 billion.  …
“Negotiations led by former President Nelson Mandela of South Africa produced a compromise in 1999: the suspects’ surrender, and a trial by Scottish judges in the Netherlands.
“The trial lasted 85 days. None of the witnesses connected the suspects directly to the bomb. But one, Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothing that forensic experts had linked to the bomb, identified Mr Megrahi as the buyer, although Mr Gauci seemed doubtful and had picked others in photo displays.
“The bomb’s timer was traced to a Zurich manufacturer, Mebo, whose owner, Edwin Bollier, testified that such devices had been sold to Libya. A fragment from the crash site was identified by a Mebo employee, Ulrich Lumpert.
“Neither defendant testified. But a turncoat Libyan agent testified that plastic explosives had been stored in Mr Fhimah’s desk in Malta, that Mr Megrahi had brought a brown suitcase, and that both men were at the Malta airport on the day the bomb was sent on its way.
“On Jan 31, 2001, the three-judge court found Mr Megrahi guilty but acquitted Mr Fhimah. The court called the case circumstantial, the evidence incomplete and some witnesses unreliable, but concluded that ‘there is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt’ of Mr Megrahi.
“Much of the evidence was later challenged. It emerged that Mr Gauci had repeatedly failed to identify Mr Megrahi before the trial and had selected him only after seeing his photograph in a magazine and being shown the same photo in court. The date of the clothing sale was also in doubt.
“Investigators said Mr Bollier, whom even the court called ‘untruthful and unreliable,’ had changed his story repeatedly after taking money from Libya, and might have gone to Tripoli just before the attack to fit a timer and bomb into the cassette recorder. The implication that he was a conspirator was never pursued.
“In 2007, Mr Lumpert admitted that he had lied at the trial, stolen a timer and given it to a Lockerbie investigator. Moreover, the fragment he identified was never tested for residue of explosives, although it was the only evidence of possible Libyan involvement.
“The court’s inference that the bomb had been transferred from the Frankfurt feeder flight was also cast into doubt when a Heathrow security guard revealed that Pan Am’s baggage area had been broken into 17 hours before the bombing, a circumstance never explored.
“Hans Köchler, a United Nations observer, called the trial ‘a spectacular miscarriage of justice,’ words echoed by Mr Mandela. Many legal experts and investigative journalists challenged the evidence, calling Mr Megrahi a scapegoat for a Libyan government long identified with terrorism. While denying involvement, Libya paid $2.7 billion to the victims’ families in 2003 in a bid to end years of diplomatic isolation.”
In other words, the case against Megrahi looks to have been an example of gross prosecutorial misconduct, relying on testimony from perjurers and failing to pursue promising leads (like the possibility that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, not transferred from plane to plane to plane, an unlikely route for a terrorist attack and made even more dubious by the absence of any evidence of an unaccompanied bag being put on those flights).

Friday 20 May 2016

Nicola Sturgeon has a duty to set up an immediate inquiry

This is the heading over an item posted today on Lockerbietruth.com, the website of Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph. It reads as follows:]

Former Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill, in his book The Lockerbie Bombing (Biteback), writes:

"Clothes in the suitcase containing the bomb were acquired in Malta, though not by Megrahi."

This totally contradicts the written verdict of the Lockerbie trial judges regarding the identification evidence given by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci:
"[88] A major factor in the case against [Baset al-Megrahi] is the identification evidence of [Maltese shopkeeper] Mr Gauci... We accept the reliability of Mr Gauci on this matter."

If MacAskill is correct and Megrahi did not purchase the clothes from Tony Gauci's shop in Malta, then how could Gauci have seen him and recognized him from photographs and in a police identity parade, and in the courtroom?

As Justice Minister MacAskill was privy to all security reports and the entire trial evidence. He worked closely with the office of the Lord Advocate. [RB: Mr MacAskill, of course, did not become Cabinet Secretary for Justice until long after the Zeist trial and first appeal. However, he was in office when the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission delivered its report on the Megrahi case and during the appeal that followed (and which was abandoned, in murky circumstances, prior to his repatriation).]

If he knows of evidence indicating that Megrahi was not the person who purchased clothes from Gauci's shop, then he has a legal and moral duty to say what it is.

If there is such evidence, then the entire testimony of the only identification witness in the Lockerbie trial, Tony Gauci, is invalid, and a major miscarriage of justice has occurred.

MacAskill's moral and legal duty, and that of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, extends not only to those bereaved relativeswho believe Megrahi to be innocent, but to all bereaved Lockerbie relatives in America and elsewhere.

Nicola Sturgeon must grasp the nettle in this matter and instigate an urgent and immediate inquiry.

"I am an innocent man”

[What follows is excerpted from a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2012:]
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing above Scotland which killed 270 people, has died at his home in Libya.
Megrahi, 60, was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2001.
He was freed from Scottish jail in 2009 on compassionate grounds because of cancer, stirring controversy when he outlived doctors' expectations.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron said it was a day to remember the 270 victims of "an appalling terrorist act". (...)
Megrahi's release sparked the fury of many of the relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The US - whose citizens accounted for 189 of the dead - also criticised the move.
But others believed he was not guilty of the bombing.
Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died at Lockerbie, called Megrahi's death a "very sad event".
"Right up to the end he was determined, for his family's sake... [that] the verdict against him should be overturned," said Dr Swire, who is a member of the Justice for Megrahi group.
His brother Abdulhakim said on Sunday that Megrahi's health had deteriorated quickly and he died at home in Tripoli.
He told the AFP news agency that Megrahi died at 13:00 local time (11:00 GMT).
Megrahi's sister told the Libyan Wal news agency that his funeral would take place at Tripoli's main cemetery on Monday, following early afternoon prayers.
Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence officer, always denied any responsibility for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988. [RB: The only evidence at his trial that Megrahi was an intelligence officer came from Abdul Majid Giaka whose evidence on every other matter was rejected by the court as incredible and unreliable. The judges gave no reasons for accepting his evidence on this single issue.]
Investigators tracing the origins of scraps of clothes wrapped around the bomb followed a trail to a shop in Malta which led them, eventually, to Megrahi.
He and another Libyan, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, were indicted by the Scottish and US courts in November 1991.
But Libya refused to extradite them. In 1999, after protracted negotiations, Libya handed the two men over for trial, under Scottish law but on neutral ground, the former US airbase at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. [RB: There were no “negotiations”. The United Kingdom and the United States adamantly refused to negotiate with Libya and accepted a “neutral venue” solution only when it became painfully obvious that the UN sanctions regime against Libya was crumbling because of their intransigence.]
Their trial began in May 2000. Fhimah was acquitted of all charges, but Megrahi was found guilty and sentenced to a minimum of 27 years in prison.
He served the first part of his sentence at the maximum-security prison at Barlinnie, in Glasgow, but was transferred in 2005 to Greenock prison.
He lost his first appeal against conviction in 2002 but in 2007, his case was referred back to senior Scottish judges. He dropped that second case two days before he was released. (...)
Scottish and American officials have been to Tripoli, trying to persuade the new Libyan government to grant visas to detectives from Dumfriesshire.
They are still searching for the answers to the questions of who ordered the bombing and who else was involved, our correspondent says, but it is not clear whether the Libyans will co-operate.
However, a spokesman for the interim government in Tripoli, the National Transitional Council (NTC), told Reuters that that Megrahi's death would not end its investigations into Lockerbie.
"The Libyan government will continue to investigate the crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime using other witnesses," NTC spokesman Mohamed al-Harizy was quoted as saying.
Last September, it emerged that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair had raised Megrahi's case in talks with Gaddafi in 2008 and 2009 in Libya, shortly before Megrahi was freed.
At the time, Libya was threatening to sever commercial links with Britain if Megrahi was not released.
But Mr Blair's spokesman told Col Gaddafi it was a case for the Scottish authorities and no business deals were discussed.
In his last interview, filmed in December 2011, Megrahi said: "I am an innocent man. I am about to die and I ask now to be left in peace with my family."

Thursday 19 May 2016

Conviction unfinished business and cannot stand

[What follows is the text of a motion lodged in the Scottish Parliament on 17 May 2016:]

Motion S5M-00051:
Christine Grahame, Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale, Scottish National Party,
Date Lodged: 17/05/2016 R

Unfinished Business
That the Parliament notes and welcomes the comments by the former Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, in his book, The Lockerbie Bombing, that “clothes in the suitcase containing the bomb were acquired in Malta though not by Megrahi“; notes that Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper key to the identification of Megrahi as purchasing the items, made 19 separate statements to the police describing the purchaser of the clothes as 6ft tall and more than 50 years of age when Megrahi was 36 and 5ft 8 inches tall; notes further that, prior to the trial, Gauci had seen photographs of Megrahi in the media and understands that Gauci received $2 million from the US, and, in all the circumstances, considers that, with the key failure of identification, the conviction against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is unfinished business and cannot stand.
Supported by: Gillian Martin, Rona Mackay, Jenny Gilruth, Colin Beattie, Kevin Stewart, Mark McDonald, David Torrance, George Adam, John Finnie

MacAskill’s book has a point of ‘enormous significance’

[This is the headline over a letter from Dr Morag Kerr published yesterday on the website of The National. It reads as follows:]
May I correct an inadvertent error in your article “MacAskill reported over Lockerbie book” (The National, May 17)?
The article implied that the material in my own book, Adequately Explained by Stupidity? Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies was included by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its six grounds for believing that the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing might have been a miscarriage of justice. This is not the case.
The six grounds cited by the SCCRC in its 2007 report all relate to the identification of Megrahi as the man who bought the clothes packed around the bomb.
As your article correctly observed, Megrahi’s actual appearance differed wildly from the witness Tony Gauci’s original description of the purchaser, and the weather conditions (and incidentally evidence relating to the Christmas lights in the town) placed the purchase on a day when there is no evidence Megrahi was even on Malta.This flawed identification was absolutely fundamental to the original conviction of Megrahi in 2001, and Mr MacAskill’s repudiation of the identification in his forthcoming book is thus of enormous significance.
My own book deals principally with a different aspect of the case, that of the method by which the bomb suitcase was introduced into the airline baggage system.
This analysis was not carried out until after the SCCRC had completed its investigation, and thus it was not included in its 2007 report.
The issue is however now assuming overwhelming importance.
It appears that both Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond (on Scotland Tonight, May 16) now accept that Megrahi did not buy these clothes, nevertheless they continue to insist that he was “involved somehow”, based principally on his presence at Malta airport on the morning of the disaster.
The original Lockerbie investigation believed that the bomb suitcase was smuggled on to an Air Malta flight at that time.This belief was however fundamentally mistaken, based on a flawed and incomplete analysis of the recovered crash debris.
Careful analysis of the blast-damaged suitcases and adjacent items shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the bomb was in a suitcase seen in the baggage container at Heathrow an hour before the connecting flight from Frankfurt landed.
Mr MacAskill is thus incorrect in his assertion that “there is no suggestion” that the bomb suitcase was not transferred to the Pan Am feeder flight at Frankfurt. The evidence for this having happened is extremely questionable. The evidence for the bomb’s presence at Heathrow is, in contrast, well-nigh irrefutable. This being the case, not only did Megrahi not buy the clothes, he was a thousand miles away from the actual scene of the crime.
I do not know who carried out the Lockerbie bombing, still less who masterminded it.
It is plain that this will never be known until the authorities understand that they need to be looking for people who were in London in the afternoon, not on Malta in the morning.

Wednesday 18 May 2016

'Door wide open' for appeal against Lockerbie plane bombing conviction

[This is the headline over a report published this evening on the website of Sputnik International. It reads as follows:]

Prominent human rights lawyer Aamer Anwar has called into question the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for 270 counts of murder in the case of the Lockerbie plane bombing, and has suggested that there is "serious consideration" to launch another appeal against the conviction of the alleged Libyan intelligence officer.

Following the publication of extracts from a soon to be released book by former Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, family members of the victims of the worst ever act of terrorism to occur on Scottish soil have said the case against Megrahi is now "crumbling."

Mr Anwar, who previously represented the families of the Scottish victims, and Mr Megrahi, told Sputnik on Wednesday that the door was still open for an appeal against the conviction.

"The families have never given up on pursuing a second appeal, it was simply the case that the Commission [Scottish Criminal Cases Commission] refused to refer it back to the Court of Appeal. But the door is still left wide open for a potential appeal," Mr Anwar told Sputnik.

"There are concerns over the conviction, that was revealed by Kenny MacAskill [ex-Justice Secretary for Scotland] and Alex Salmond [former First Minster of Scotland], in regards to the identification evidence that was critical to Mr Megrahi's conviction.

"There's serious consideration of whether to go back to the commission again in light of the shocking revelations that we've seen over the last 48 hours."

The conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of the Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland in 1988, killing 270, was based on key evidence from Maltese shop owner, Tony Gauci, who testified that he had sold Mr Megrahi clothing that was found in the wreckage.

Previews of Kenny MacAskill's book, The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice tell that he does not believe that Mr Megrahi bought the clothes, and raised serious concerns over the legitimacy of the testimony given that Mr Gauci had later been unable to identify Mr Megrahi.

When asked if he believed that the conviction could have occurred without this key evidence Mr Anwar said: "That's a matter for the Lordships, but the testimony was significant.

"Had we known then, what we know now it might have put a different slant on matters. At the end of the day, in any court in this land, if you were to subsequently find out that a witness has been offered money to give positive testimony in court, or if you found out that they had been unable to identify an individual and they had been cajoled into recognizing someone — and there were all these problems with that identification evidence, then it's unlikely that that evidence would have been allowed into court," Mr Anwar told Sputnik.

Kenny MacAskill wrote that he received numerous death threats for the decision that the he and the SNP government made in 2009 to release Mr Megrahi to the Libyan authorities on compassionate grounds when he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Mr Megrahi died three years later in Libya.

Mr MacAskill has now revealed that at one stage he and the then First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, tried to use the planned transfer of Mr Megrahi to secure further powers for the Scottish Government in Holyrood. Mr Anwar suggested that this raises further questions over the previous attempts to bring this case to the Court of Appeal.

"At the time of Mr Megrahi's release it was always denied vociferously that it had anything to do with shady oil deals in the desert or weapons contracts, we now know that to be different, but there was also a denial that any pressure had been put on Mr Megrahi [to drop the appeal in return for release on compassionate grounds], so one wonders what is it that we are no supposed to believe."

Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the explosion, has campaigned to uncover the truth behind the bombing for several years.

He told Scottish newspaper, The National, that the case against Mr Megrahi was now "falling to pieces."

Mr MacAskill's book will not be published in full until the [26] May 2016.

[RB: Aamer Anwar is understandably and commendably cautious on the issue of whether Megrahi could still have been convicted if the court had not found that he was the Malta purchaser. "That's a matter for the Lordships, but the testimony was significant,” he is quoted as saying. 

Unlike Mr Anwar, I have no need to be circumspect on this matter. If the trial court judges had not treated the evidence as establishing that Megrahi was the purchaser I confidently assert that they would not, and in law could not, have returned a verdict of guilty. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission shares my view. In para 21.100 of its Statement of Reasons in the Megrahi application the Commission states: “It is sufficient to say that in the Commission's view any finding that a reasonable court could not have inferred that the applicant was the purchaser would render the remaining evidence against him insufficient to convict.”]

Lockerbie bombing conviction ‘crumbling’

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

The official case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is crumbling, according to the father of one of the victims.

Dr Jim Swire’s comments came as the fallout continued from the first extracts published of former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice.

MacAskill wrote that clothes in the suitcase used to carry the bomb “were acquired in Malta, though not by Megrahi. But if Megrahi didn’t buy the clothes, he was certainly involved”.

The verdict reached at Megrahi’s trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, hinged on evidence from Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci that he had bought the clothes in his shop.

Swire told The National: “I think what we’re seeing is the official case is falling to pieces. There will have to be a legally powerful review of all the evidence, the way the trial was conducted and it’s more than justified whatever the decisions reached by Operation Sandwood.”

Sandwood is a Police Scotland investigation into allegations of criminal misconduct in the Lockerbie investigation, prosecution and trial by the campaign group Justice for Megrahi (JfM) of which Swire is a founder member.

“If Sandwood confirms any of the criminal acts that are alleged then it’s absolutely inevitable that there should be such an inquiry. The evidence has to be reviewed in a way that would have the power to overturn the verdict if it so decided.

“If Megrahi didn’t buy the clothing there’s no case against him.”

Megrahi was released by MacAskill on compassionate grounds in August 2009 suffering from terminal prostate cancer, and died three years later in Libya.

Lawyer Aamer Anwar, meanwhile, has claimed that pressure is mounting for a further appeal against the conviction. He had previously applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to have it overturned – an application made on behalf of Swire, the Rev John Mosey and 22 other British relatives of passengers who died on Pan Am Flight 103, as well as immediate Megrahi family members.

“This is not the end of the matter and the fact that a former Justice Secretary and First Minister are raising concerns about the conviction of Megrahi adds to the pressure for a further appeal, because they’re privy to information that none of us are privy to,” Anwar told The National.

“At the end of the day … Megrahi was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopkeeper who claimed to have sold him clothes, gave a description of him in multiple statements and failed to recognise him in a courtroom.

“It’s now accepted by an ex-Justice Secretary that Megrahi might not have bought those clothes. It’s all very well for Mr MacAskill to say he’s got no doubt that he was involved in the bombing in some way, but that’s not how it works in criminal law.

“If Megrahi did not buy those clothes that were found in the wreckage of Pan Am flight 103 then that casts doubt on his conviction.”

Anwar added that the Scottish and UK governments had always denied playing any role in pressuring Megrahi into dropping his appeal.

MacAskill was unavailable for comment last night.

[A letter from Iain A D Mann published in The Herald today reads as follows:]

It comes as no great surprise to learn from the new book by former Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, analysed by Iain Macwhirter, that the release of the convicted prisoner Abdul baset al Megrahi from a Scottish jail was the result of a cynical undercover deal between Gordon Brown’s UK government and Libya’s President Gadaffi. It was all about undercover oil deals and defence contracts, and had little to do with Megrahi’s state of terminal illness (“Macaskill, Megrahi and a host of questions”, The Herald, May 17).

But the question must then be asked: why on earth did the Scottish Government agree to take all the blame and then be subject to years of abuse from the British and American governments and media? What benefit was that to Scotland? Does Mr MacAskill’s book explain this, and also why the Scottish Government insisted on taking sole responsibility for Megrahi’s early release?

It seems that the new book also confirms that the attack on [Pan Am] 103 “was in revenge for the downing of an Iranian civilian passenger aircraft by a US naval ship”. Most rational people have believed this for years, but again the question arises: why did Libya agree to carry out the retaliation on behalf of Iran? I am sure the Iranian secret service was just as capable of doing its own dirty work, rather than sub-contracting the job to another country which had no good reason to become involved.

Questions also still remain about the reliability of some of the evidence given at the Camp Zeist trial, despite Mr MacAskill’s lengthy review of the case in his book. He also confirms that “other states and terrorist organisations also played their part”. Again many of us have believed that for years, but it was never mentioned at the trial. Sadly this case remains a stain on the reputation of our much revered Scottish justice system, and Mr MacAskill has not helped this situation by these latest revelations.