Lockerbie remembrance leaves out one key fact

[This is the headline over a letter published yesterday on the website of the Rhode Island newspaper the Providence Journal. It reads as follows:]

Providence Journal columnist Edward Fitzpatrick’s “A wrenching reminder of Flight 103” (column, Aug 7), which recounted the bombing in December 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 259 people, including some of Fitzpatrick’s fellow students from Syracuse University, is moving but not balanced.

While he points to two Libyan intelligence agents as responsible for that horror, he neglects the fact that investigators believe the Libyans were retaliating for the July 1988 US shootdown of the commercial Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes, which was in Iranian territorial waters, during the Iran-Iraq War. All 290 passengers died, including 66 children.

Perhaps telling the whole story could motivate Americans to do what is within our power: Pressure our government to stop committing imperialistic atrocities around the world, first because we don’t condone such acts, and second because the targets of those acts will surely come back to wipe out innocent American lives as well.

Catherine Orloff

Providence

Shameful incompetence

[On this date in 2012 the Edinburgh International Book Festival featured a session devoted to John Ashton’s recently-published Megrahi: You are my Jury. The report of the event on the EIBF website reads as follows:]

“Eight senior Scottish judges got it wrong, but the question is why? It is not because of a lack of intellectual skills”, said Hans Köchler this morning at the Edinburgh International Book Festival, suggesting an international government cover up over the conviction of the Libyan bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Speaking at the first keynote event on the opening morning of the Book Festival, Köchler, who was an observer at the Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie) bombing trial and subsequent appeal, argued that the verdict was reached for political motives and that the Scottish judges at Camp Zeist passed a ruling which was not logical upon examination of the facts.

Joining Köchler in the event was John Ashton, author of Megrahi: You are My Jury, as well as Jim Swire, whose daughter was killed in the Lockerbie bombing of 1988.

Ashton, who worked on Megrahi’s legal team and has written the biography of Megrahi on his request, agreed with Köchler, arguing that the Crown Office withheld evidence in the initial trial, “their incompetence was shameful” he said.

Following a meeting with the Lord Advocate in February of this year, Jim Swire spoke of his fury that the Lord Advocate did not know why evidence was withheld by the Crown Office in the original trial, specifically the evidence surrounding a break in to Heathrow airport around the time Pan Am Flight 103 took off from London.

Megrahi, who died in May this year, was released on compassionate grounds from Scottish prison in 2009 – a decision that was deeply divisive. “Megrahi’s cancer was a gift from God for everyone involved in this case. It was a tragedy for Megrahi but everyone else was punching the air”, said Ashton, suggesting that the release allowed for improved relations between the UK, Libya and the United States, having earlier said it was “plain as daylight” there was a deal between Tony Blair and Colonel Gaddafi.

[RB: Magnus Linklater was present at the session and was most unhappy about the warm reception given by the packed audience to the speakers’ contention that the Megrahi conviction was a disgrace. His column in The Times two days later can be read here; responses by John Ashton and Steven Raeburn can be read here.]

Why Megrahi dropped the appeal

[This is the heading over a section of an article by Lucy Adams that was published in The Herald on the occasion of the publication of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury. It reads as follows:]

CONTEXT: Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi had two possible routes out of Greenock jail in August 2009: a prisoner transfer application for which he first had to drop his appeal, or compassionate release because of his prostate cancer. The latter route did not demand that he drop his appeal, in contrast to the former. In the event, he ended his appeal, yet the PTA was turned down, and Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill instead granted compassionate release. The chain of actions has always been a mystery, leaving those who believe in Megrahi’s guilt to see his decision as confirmation of their views. Why would an innocent man not pursue an appeal against conviction that he had waited years to begin? Now, for the first time, Megrahi claims that he was pressured to drop the appeal by Mr MacAskill personally through diplomatic channels.

EXTRACT: "On 10 August [2009] MacAskill and his senior civil servants met a delegation of Libyan officials, including Minister [Abdel Ati] Al-Obeidi. By this time I was desperate. The 90-day time limit for considering the prisoner transfer application had passed and, although I had some vocal public supporters, MacAskill was coming under considerable pressure to reject both applications. After the meeting the Libyan delegation came to the prison to visit me. Obeidi said that, towards the end of the meeting, MacAskill had asked to speak to him in private. Once the others had withdrawn, MacAskill told him it would be easier for him to grant compassionate release if I dropped my appeal. He [MacAskill] said he was not demanding that I do so, but the message seemed to me to be clear. I was legally entitled to continue the appeal, but I could not risk doing so. It meant abandoning my quest for justice."

LUCY ADAMS VERDICT:  Mr MacAskill, who was not contacted in advance of today's book publication, has always said he could not interfere in the judicial process. If Megrahi's version of events is true, it will prove very damaging to the minister, who has repeatedly distanced himself from any appeal which, if it had gone ahead, could have been a massive embarrassment to the Scottish legal system. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had already found six grounds on which Megrahi’s conviction was potentially unsafe.

A scapegoat in the ugly world of international power politics

[What follow is the text of an article dated 9 August 2009 that was written by UN Lockerbie trial observer Professor Hans Köchler for the Sunday Express:]

Back in August 1998 the United Nations Security Council had “welcomed” the resolution of the legal-political dispute between Libya and the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom over the explosion of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie through the trial of two Libyan suspects before an extraterritorial Scottish Court in the Netherlands. While the dispute between the governments has been settled years ago and Libya now entertains businesslike relations with both the US and UK, the only individual convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, still awaits a final verdict in his case, the announcement of which he may not live to see because, while in Scottish custody, he has fallen ill with cancer that was detected only at a time when, so the prison authorities say, it was already too late to administer more than palliative care.

The hopeless, indeed Kafkaesque, situation which the lone Libyan prisoner finds himself in is further aggravated by the fact that his second appeal has suffered from enormous delays – which are scandalous under any circumstances and, seen in the context of deliberate withholding of evidence, are tantamount to an obstruction of justice. His predicament became even more serious when certain quarters confronted him with the alternative of either giving up his appeal in order to be sent back to Libya on the basis of a recently ratified “prisoner exchange agreement” between the UK and Libya – or die in a Scottish jail.

Under these circumstances, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice (who certainly has seen the latest medical reports) should act without further delay on Mr al Megrahi’s second request (the first was rejected) for “compassionate release” under the provisions of Scots law. This would allow the appeal to continue and avoid the circumstances of “emotional blackmail” the Lockerbie prisoner faces in regard to the prisoner exchange option. Apart from the convicted Libyan national’s right – under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – to a proper judicial review, it is in the supreme public interest of Scotland and the United Kingdom that this second appeal proceed unhindered and that, eventually, a decision be reached beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental criterion of Scots law was not in any way met by the trial verdict and (first) appeal decision of the Scottish Court sitting in the Netherlands back in 2001 and 2002. The Opinions of the Court issued by the two panels of Scottish judges were inconsistent and based almost entirely on circumstantial evidence; on testimony of at least two key witnesses who had received huge amounts of money; on the opinions of forensic experts of, to say the least, dubious reputation and with problematic links to intelligence services; and on at least one piece of evidence that had been inserted at a later stage into the list of documents and apparently been tampered with. Furthermore, vital evidence such as that of a break-in at a luggage storage area at Heathrow airport in the night before the departure of the doomed flight had been withheld from the court during the first trial (a fact that still has not been properly explained), and further vital evidence is still being withheld in the phase of the second appeal due to the British Foreign Secretary’s having issued a so-called Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificate. Concerns similar to those which I had raised in my reports to the United Nations Organization in 2001 and 2002 about improprieties, irregularities and judicial malpractices have also been raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) that, in June 2007, referred Mr al Megrahi’s case back to the appeal court, suspecting – as I had done on the day of the original verdict on 31 January 2001 – that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Regrettably, the SCCRC has decided to keep some of the reasons for its decision secret.

The public is also kept in the dark about what Scotland’s Justice Secretary discussed at his meeting with Mr. al Megrahi at Greenock prison, which was indeed an unprecedented step in Scottish legal history. One thing should be taken for certain, however: If Mr MacAskill is a man of honour, he will not have made granting the prisoner’s request for “compassionate release” conditional upon the latter’s dropping the ongoing appeal. This would not only be morally outrageous, it would also be illegal in terms of Scots law and, as infringement upon a convicted person’s freedom to seek judicial review, in outright violation of the European Human Rights Convention the provisions of which are binding upon Scotland.

If Scotland prides itself in its unique judicial system, which it has practised since long before devolution, the authorities should exercise all efforts to repair the damage that has been done to the country’s reputation by the flawed judicial proceedings in the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi. If Mr MacAskill is indeed serious about dealing with the matter strictly within legal parameters, as he repeatedly said, the competent Scottish authorities should finally make those steps that are necessary to identify the actual “Lockerbie bombers” (in the plural!) wherever they may be and however powerful they still may be, apparently having succeeded for so long in using the Scottish judicial system to make Mr al Megrahi a scapegoat in the strange and ugly world of international power politics.

Lawyer confident about Lockerbie appeal

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2001. It reads in part:]

The Libyan lawyer in charge of the Lockerbie bomber's appeal says he is confident that his client will soon be freed.

Dr Ibrahim Legwell's comments came after it was revealed that two top international legal experts had joined the appeal team.

English barrister Michael Mansfield QC and American human rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz are both involved in the fight to free Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

The Libyan was sentenced to life imprisonment earlier this year for murdering 270 people in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fahima, was found not guilty by three judges at a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.

Speaking from London on Wednesday, Dr Legwell said: "I sent them a copy of the verdict and the transcripts of the trial and asked them for their views and analysis.

"I wanted to know what western lawyers thought about the verdict.

"Their replies gave me the confidence that we can go ahead with the trial with confidence in the western judicial system.

"There are definite aspects which show there has been a miscarriage of justice and I am very confident that we will be able to turn over his conviction." (...)

A further six lawyers have been enlisted to work on Megrahi's appeal.

Among them is Clive Nicholls QC, who represented the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet during extradition hearings at the High Court in London last year.

High profile American lawyer Frank Rubino has also been recruited to the appeal team.

Dr Legwell said he would consult the international legal team for further advice before passing it on to "our Scottish defence team so they can adapt it to Scots law".

Referring to his client, Dr Legwell said: "He is suffering a lot because he knows he is innocent, but has been convicted. But he is optimistic and confident he will win his case."

[RB: Dr Legwell had been the Libyan lawyer originally appointed to represent Megrahi and Fhimah. He was sacked in September 1998 and replaced by Kamal Maghur: the circumstances are outlined here. Maghur died shortly after the Zeist trial ended with Megrahi’s conviction, and Legwell took up the reins once again.

Dr Legwell was always a great enthusiast for international advisory teams, though what they could usefully contribute to preparation for a Scottish trial seemed, to me at least, to be questionable. Here is something written by me about an earlier stage in the case:]

… it was indicated to me that the Libyan government was satisfied regarding the fairness of a criminal trial in Scotland but that since Libyan law prevented the extradition of nationals for trial overseas, the ultimate decision on surrender for trial would have to beone taken voluntarily by the accused persons themselves, in consultation with their independent legal advisers. For this purpose a meeting was convened in Tripoli in October 1993 of the international team of lawyers which had already been appointed to represent the accused. This team consisted of lawyers from Scotland, England, Malta, Switzerland and the United States and was chaired by the principal Libyan lawyer for the accused, Dr Ibrahim Legwell. The Libyan government asked me to be present in Tripoli while the team was meeting so that the government itself would have access to independent Scottish legal advice should the need arise.

Libya undertakes to pay Lockerbie compensation

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in The Independent on this date in 2002:]

The Libyan government said yesterday that it was ready to pay compensation for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and address UN demands that it accept responsibility for the attack, which killed 270 people.

Libya's Foreign Minister, Mohammed Abderrahman Shalgam, made the announcement after talks between the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, and the Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien. He also said Libya was ready to normalise relations with the US.

Mr Shalgam said: "Regarding compensation, as a principle, yes, we are going to do something on that topic. Regarding responsibility, we are discussing this issue. We are ready to get rid of this obstacle." The minister's comments mark a sea-change in Libya's official position. While a team of lawyers and business leaders has been involved in discussions about compensation for the past 18 months, the Libya has until now expressed reluctance to make such payments. (...)

British officials said the comments were Libya's clearest declaration so far that it was prepared to comply with conditions for lifting all sanctions imposed over its role in the Lockerbie bombing, for which the Libyan agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was convicted last year at the specially established Scottish court in the Netherlands.

Mr O'Brien is the first British minister to visit Libya for 20 years and is believed to be the first yet to meet Colonel Gaddafi.Their meeting was held in a bedouin tent on the beach of Sirte and marked a day of intensive discussions, which also included five hours of talks with senior Libyan ministers. British officials described the meeting as a "thorough work-through of the bilateral issues", including co-operation against terrorism, as well as Lockerbie.

[The Guardian’s report contains the following:]

Outstanding issues remain between Britain and Libya.

British officials said Libya needed to comply fully with UN resolutions calling for Libya to accept responsibility and pay compensation to families of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing.

Col Gadafy has agreed to pay compensation but still refuses to admit responsibility despite the conviction of Libyan official Abdel Baset al-Megrahi of involvement in the bombing. UN sanctions against Libya, now suspended, will not be fully lifted until he does.

[In a letter dated 15 August 2003, which I helped to draft, Libya accepted “responsibility for the actions of its officials”.]

The late Robin Cook

On this date in 2005 the death of Robin Cook was announced. As Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government formed after the general election held on 1 May 1997, he played a significant part in overcoming the UK and US intransigence that was preventing a neutral venue Lockerbie trial. According to the report in The Independent:

As Foreign Secretary in Labour's first term, he sought to implement a more ethical approach to Britain's relations with the rest of the world. Mr Cook himself had listed his proudest achievements in Government as: "Breaking the deadlock in the Lockerbie case; defending Kosovo; saving lives and relieving suffering in Sierra Leone; contributing to the fall of Milosevic; transforming Britain's relations with Europe; rebuilding respect for Britain in the world."

Items on this blog referring to Robin Cook can be found here.

Lockerbie fake goes on

[This is part of the headline over an article by the late Henk Ruyssenaars that was published on this date in 2008 on the Storming Heaven’s Gates website. It reads in part:]

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Professor H Köchler in April 2000 as the international UN-observer at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands concerning the Lockerbie Trial, and his comments on the Scottish Court's verdict in August 2003 were bitter. "This has been a political court case, where the verdict already was decided upon in advance", a shocked Professor Köchler, the UN-observer at the Scottish Lockerbie Court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands stated. "The whole is a spectacular miscarriage of justice." he said.

"This was a classical case of a "Show Process" from the time of the Cold War. Like they had in the Soviet Union and East Germany before the Iron Curtain fell," Professor Hans Köchler commented, after the verdict of the Scottish Court's conclusion in the Lockerbie Trial.

In a 'strange' way his remarks have since 2003 hardly been used by the international propaganda media, covering the biggest and most expensive mass murder trial in British legal history which ended when the court upheld the conviction of the Libyan agent Abdelbaset Ali Mohammed al-Megrahi." - The rest is at www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4460.htm

It's all a fake, but this is what Reuters now spreads from Washington: ''US President George W Bush on Monday (Aug 4th 2008) signed into law legislation paving the way for Libya to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to compensate US victims of bombing attacks that Washington blames on Tripoli. The Libyan Claims Resolution Act clears the way to resolve all outstanding US claims related to what Washington regards as Libyan terrorist acts. These include the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, that killed 270 people and the 1986 bombing of a Berlin disco that killed three people and wounded 229.

"For too many years, Libya has refused to accept responsibility for its horrific acts of terrorism against American victims," said Sen Frank Lautenberg, the New Jersey Democrat who sponsored the original legislation to allow compensation. "But after the pressure we applied, Libya will finally be held accountable for these devastating events. Our bill becoming law means these victims and their families can get the long overdue justice they deserve." The United States and Libya worked out a tentative deal to resolve all the outstanding cases. Libya has yet to sign the agreement but US officials said they expected it to do so after the deal was signed into US law.

Bush signed the bill before leaving Washington on a week-long visit to Asia. A group of Lockerbie victims' families said the new moves brought them a step closer to holding Libya accountable. "It is a relief to say that this part of our fight is coming to an end. There's still more work to be done and the families aren't done fighting for the truth," said Kara Weipz, spokeswoman for the Families of the Victims of Pan Am 103. "There are still a lot of things that we want to know."

Under the arrangement, Libya would not accept responsibility for the acts, but would provide the money to compensate the victims. If carried out, the deal could end the legal liability to Libya stemming from multiple lawsuits by families of the US victims, and it could herald a further warming in ties between Tripoli and Washington.  - Source: 2008 The International Herald Tribune http://tinyurl.com/63wc7u

Bush and his criminal buddies, including Sen Lautenberg who sponsored the original legislation to allow this criminal 'compensation', know that Libya had absolutely nothing to do with either the La Belle disco bombing or the Lockerbie disaster, and even part of the families of the victims know Bush and his ilk are lying: plane-truth.com/megrahi_innocent.htm

The Guardian partly shows how it also was done: "The key prosecution witness in the Lockerbie bombing trial was allegedly offered a $2m reward in return for giving evidence, raising fresh doubts about the safety of the case. Lawyers for Abdelbaset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of murdering 270 people on board Pan Am Flight 103, have evidence that detectives investigating the bombing recommended that Tony Gauci, a shopkeeper from Malta, be given the payment after the case ended.

Mr Gauci's testimony at the trial was crucial to al-Megrahi's conviction. He told the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands that the Libyan had bought clothes at his shop which the prosecution claimed were packed into the suitcase bomb that exploded over Lockerbie on December 21 1988. The defence team believe Mr Gauci may have received a larger sum from the US authorities. His role in the case is to be central to al-Megrahi's appeal against his conviction, which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission said was unsafe.

They are to press for full disclosure of these payments, and the release of a potentially vital US document which is thought to cast doubt on official accounts about the timer allegedly used in the bombing, at an appeal hearing next week.

The secret document is believed to dispute prosecution claims that al-Megrahi used a digital timer bought from a Swiss company, Mebo, and then planted the bomb on a flight from Malta to Germany - a disclosure which would fatally undermine his conviction." Fresh doubts on Lockerbie conviction: The Guardian http://tinyurl.com/5vzxem

Minister visits Lockerbie bomber

[This is the headline over a report published on the BBC News website on this date in 2009. It reads as follows:]

Scotland's justice secretary has visited the Lockerbie bomber amid speculation he might be moved to Libya.

Kenny MacAskill met Abdelbasset Ali al-Megrahi in Greenock Prison as he considers a transfer request from the Libyan government.

The minister has already heard the views of others, including relatives of some of the 270 victims of the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Terminally-ill Megrahi has also asked to be freed on compassionate grounds.

The transfer request was made by Libya to the UK government last May, less than a week after a treaty allowing prisoners to be transferred between the two countries was ratified.

Under the agreement, the country holding a prisoner should give its answer within 90 days.

Decisions about prisoners are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, in effect giving Mr MacAskill the final say.

Mr MacAskill said last week he would miss the 90-day deadline, which expired on 3 August, because he was waiting for more information.

No transfer can take place if criminal proceedings are active, meaning Megrahi would have to drop his latest appeal against his conviction in order to be sent home.

He was ordered to remain in prison for a minimum of 27 years having been found guilty of murdering 270 people in the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103.

Mr MacAskill has embarked upon a series of consultations with interested parties, including relatives of American victims with whom he held a video conference.

While unusual for a minister to discuss a prisoner's case with him while he remains in jail, Mr MacAskill is understood to believe the visit is important to allow him to consider all of the facts.

Megrahi's legal team have also made a separate request for him to released from prison on compassionate grounds as he is suffering from terminal prostate cancer.

An earlier request, made in October 2008, was rejected by Appeal Court judges after they heard medical evidence that with adequate palliative care, Megrahi could live for several years.

The court heard that such requests are normally only granted where a prisoner has less than three months to live.

[RB: Following criticism directed towards Mr MacAskill for visiting Megrahi, I commented on this blog as follows:]

The visit by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to Abdelbaset Megrahi became inevitable as soon as Mr MacAskill decided, presumably after taking advice from his officials, to take representations in person (and not just in writing) from interested persons, such as relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103. He could not, while complying with the requirement of procedural fairness incumbent upon him, offer the opportunity to make representations in person to categories of interested persons while denying that opportunity to the prisoner himself.

Are the politicians who have rushed to criticise Kenny MacAskill for meeting Abdelbaset Megrahi prepared to criticise him for meeting (in person in some cases, by video link in others) Lockerbie relatives? If not, their criticism is based on a misunderstanding of the legal position and reflects on them, not on Mr MacAskill.

[Abdelbaset Megrahi’s own account of this meeting (Megrahi: You are my Jury, page 354) reads as follows:]

… MacAskill visited me in Greenock Prison. It was a controversial decision which drew much criticism from the media and the relatives of the American victims. I reiterated what I’d said in my application and again emphasised my innocence. He was courteous throughout and gave the impression of being strong-minded yet gentle. Prior to the meeting I’d obtained a copy of his book Building a Nation, as I wanted to know more about his political views. He was no doubt surprised when I asked him to sign it, but he agreed to do so. I promised him jokingly that I would not run off and tell the media.

Cover-up, conspiracy and the Lockerbie bomb connection

[This is the headline over an article by Marcello Mega that was published in Scotland on Sunday on 19 February 2006:]

If there is a day when the seemingly inconsequential case involving DC Shirley McKie morphed into the crisis which today is threatening the reputation of Scotland's judicial and political system, it is Thursday, August 3, 2000.

It was already more than three years since McKie had visited a house in Kilmarnock where a woman called Marion Ross had been brutally murdered. Since then McKie had been accused of entering that house unauthorised, and leaving her fingerprint on the crime scene. She had been charged with perjury, after claiming in court she had never set foot in there. She had been humiliated at the hands of her former colleagues.

Now, on that August day, a group set up by the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland (ACPOS) to examine the McKie case, was faced with a stunning report. It had already been established that the fingerprint experts at the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO) had got it wrong and that the print was not McKie's. Now, the document in front of the group - an interim update from James Mackay, the man they had asked to investigate the case - claimed the SCRO officers had acted criminally to cover up their mistakes. The consequences were immense: if Scotland's forensic service was both guilty of errors and of attempting to conceal those errors, what confidence could anyone have in the entire justice system?

Last week, Scotland on Sunday revealed the contents of Mackay's final report, which had been kept secret for six years, and which was never acted upon by Scotland's chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Colin Boyd. This week, we can reveal that it was not just police and prosecutors who knew its contents; the devastating findings of the interim version were passed on to ministers as well.

Mackay, a much respected former Deputy Chief Constable of Tayside police, had been commissioned to investigate the McKie case after a separate report by HM Inspectors of Constabulary had found that - despite the SCRO's claims - McKie's prints had never been at the crime scene. Mackay now probed deeper. As this newspaper revealed last week, his final report found that a mistake had been made, yet had not then been owned up to. "The fact that it was not so dealt with," he reported, "led to 'cover up' and criminality." (...)

On Friday, [Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC] declared that he had seen the full Mackay report and decided that there was still insufficient evidence to prosecute anyone from the SCRO. This decision, taken in September 2001, astonished Mackay. He is understood to have expressed his "surprise" and "disappointment" to the Crown Office and to have relayed his concerns to the then deputy crown agent, Bill Gilchrist. Indeed, so curious is the Lord Advocate's decision not to prosecute, that many are reaching their own conclusions as to why he didn't press ahead with a prosecution.

One is the theory that such a prosecution would undermine the case against David Asbury, the man jailed for the murder of Marion Ross. Such a fear was misguided: Asbury's conviction was quashed anyway in August 2002 on the back of the McKie revelations.

A second theory brings in the shadow of the Lockerbie bombing. Mackay's explosive report into the McKie case that August came three months after Boyd began the prosecution of Libyan suspects Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. The eyes of the world were focused on Scottish justice. What would it have said of that system if - just as the Crown was trying to convict the bombers - it emerged that fingerprint officials had been involved in "criminality and cover-up"?

Boyd strenuously denies that Lockerbie has any relevance to his judgments regarding the McKie case. When Iain McKie first raised the issue in 2000, Crown Office officials declared that Lockerbie "had not affected in any way the response from this or indeed any other department of the Scottish Executive to the issues raised by you."

But there is clear proof that senior justice chiefs had a stake in both cases; SCRO director Harry Bell, for example - whose agency was coming under such scrutiny - was a central figure in the Lockerbie investigation, having been given the key role in the crucial Maltese wing of the investigation, and given evidence in court.

Today's revelation that two American fingerprint experts who savaged the SCRO over the McKie case were asked by the FBI to "back off" suggests that plenty of people were aware of the danger that the case could undermine the Lockerbie trial.

Former MP Tam Dalyell - who has long campaigned on the Lockerbie case -

said: "I have always felt that there was something deeply wrong with both the McKie case and the Lockerbie judgment. It is deeply dismaying for those of us who were believers in Scottish justice. The Crown Office regard the Lockerbie case as their flagship case and they will go to any lengths to defend their position."

The pressure for a full public inquiry is now growing day by day.

Background to prisoner transfer agreement

[What follows is excerpted from an article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer that was published on the OhmyNews International website on this date in 2007:]

Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Libya leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, told the French newspaper Le Monde that the six health workers, held in Libya for nearly a decade for allegedly having infected hundreds of children with HIV, have been released in exchange for the transfer to Libya of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi. (...)

"We will soon have an extradition agreement with the UK. Our diplomats have discussed the matter with their British counterparts last month," Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi said.

Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi sought the interview, held on Tuesday in a luxurious hotel located in the French city of Nice, to "clarify a few issues." He told the French journalists that he never believed that the six Health workers were guilty. "Unfortunately, they were mere scapegoats," he stated calmly. (...)

The deal was initiated by the former Head of MI6 Global Operations, Marc Allan [sic; the person referred to is Sir Mark Allen], who arranged a series of meetings between Bulgarian and Libyan secret services agents.

[General Kirtcho] Kirov [head of Bulgarian secret services] met Moussa Koussa on five occasions in Tripoli, Roma, Paris and London. Koussa was the head of the Libyan secret services until 2004, when he was succeeded by Abdallah Sanoussi, the brother-in-law of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Kirov and Sanoussi pursued the negotiations over the last three years.

Last February, Saif Al-Islam, the sword of Islam, and Kirov held a secret night meeting in Vienna. The two men agreed on exchanging the six medics sentenced to death in Libya for Abdel Basset Ali Al-Megrahi.

"I knew that these issues would be solved by late July-early August," Kirov said. "Both affairs are indirectly linked to the geopolitical interests of the US, the UK and Libya." (...)

The agreement to swap the medics for Megrahi was finalized during Blair visit to Tripoli earlier this year. On June 28, less than a month after one of his last foreign travels as Prime Minister, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided to grant Megrahi a second appeal and to refer his case to the High Court.

The revelation by Saif Al-Islam and the timing of the events are devastating for Blair and the credibility of the Crown’s independence. Tony Blair's official spokesman has always denied the allegations that Megrahi would be returned to Libya.

Asked about these allegations, which were reported by the BBC and Sky News, at the G8 summit, Mr Blair's spokesman told AFP: "It's wrong."

The statement from the prime minister's office was backed by the Foreign Office spokesman. "It's an MoU that is going to lead to the start of discussions on the whole gamut of legal issues, judicial issues," he told AFP.

“Given that, it is totally wrong to suggest that we have reached any agreement with the Libyan government in this case. The memorandum of understanding agreed with the Libyan government does not cover this case,” he added. [RB: The Memorandum of Understanding, of course, did cover -- and was understood by both sides to cover -- Abdelbaset Megrahi.]

"Incredibly it seems that we are being asked to believe that this concerns other Libyan nationals, but not Megrahi," said Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing.

The content of the MoU, which was signed on May 29 during Blair visit to Tripoli, is not known. Nevertheless, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond told the Scottish Parliament that the document "deals with judicial cooperation on matters of law, extradition, and on the issue of prisoner transfer".

"This government is determined that decisions on any individual case will continue to be made following the due process of Scots law," Salmond said.

"Tony Blair has quite simply ridden roughshod over devolution and treated with contempt Scotland's distinct and independent legal system," said Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie.

It has long been suspected that the US and the UK governments would do whatever necessary to avoid a re-trial of the Lockerbie bombing. If indeed Megrahi is returned to Libya, it is almost certain that the real culprits of the worst act of terror in the UK will never be identified, let alone convicted. Neither will we ever know why both governments have conspired to cover up the identities of these culprits.