Lockerbie-Pan Am 103: Prosecution case evaporates

In the wilds of the Roggeveld Karoo we have been without internet access for the past three days. Here is what I would have posted on Monday, 17 October had it been possible.

[This is the headline over an article by Steve James that was published on the WSWS.org website on this date in 2000:]

After six months, the prosecution case in the trial of the two Libyans accused of blowing up Pan Am 103 on December 21 1988 has all but evaporated. The defendants, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, are being tried at a special court in Camp Zeist, a former US military base in the Netherlands, which was designated as Scottish territory for the purpose of the proceedings.

At the time of writing, the trial has again been interrupted after Scottish Lord Advocate Colin Boyd informed the three trial judges that new and unspecified information relating to the defence case had been made available to the prosecution by "a government”, but not that of the USA. The adjournment came on the day before Mohamed Abu Talb, a former member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) was due to give evidence for the prosecution. Talb, who is already serving a life sentence in Sweden for planting bombs, is one of those cited by the defence in their special defence of incrimination. This states that the PFLP-GC was, with others, responsible for the atrocity that killed 270 people. Talb denies any involvement and is now scheduled to give evidence on October 17. He has apparently been offered remission of his present sentence and immunity from further prosecution if he testifies.

A report in the October 15 Scotland on Sunday newspaper suggested that the government in question referred to by Boyd was Syria, and that a "confession" by Talb had been handed over to the prosecution. The Lord Advocate has also arranged an explanatory meeting with angry relatives of those who died in the explosion, who fear the trial may now disintegrate.

The present adjournment is the latest in a series that have preceded the appearance of particularly controversial witnesses or pieces of evidence.

Shortly before the trial commenced, the Swiss manufacturer of the timing device implicated in the explosion announced that from their own research, they concluded the bomb had not been located in the luggage container in a Samsonite suitcase, as the prosecution team claimed, but was jammed against the aircraft wall. Such public announcements from a leading witness threw the prosecution into crisis, triggered a round of legal threats to newspapers such as the Glasgow-based Sunday Herald who had printed the claims made by Edwin Bollier, CEO of MEBO, which made the MST-13 electronic timers alleged to have triggered the explosion.

When he eventually took the stand in June, both prosecution and defence questioning of Bollier revealed the extent of MEBO's relations both with the Libyan government and the former East German security police, the Stasi. He sold prototype timers, and millions of pounds worth of electronic equipment, including exploding mobile pagers and encryption manuals to the Stasi, who are known to have supplied the PFLP-GC with equipment. Bollier supplied Libya with radio antennae, bomb timers, and had observed explosives' trials in the Libyan desert. He rented a Swiss office to one of the accused, who it is likely had some role in the Libyan intelligence service. Bollier also had unspecified relations with other Middle Eastern governments and with the CIA.

Bollier's was followed by a series of witnesses—CIA and ex-Stasi spies, other MEBO staff, airport staff, a clothes shop owner—whose testimony reveals a prosecution case that is characterised by its extreme flimsiness, resting almost exclusively on tenuous circumstantial evidence, for which alternative explanations can easily be found.

The prosecutions most heralded witness was Abdul Majid Giacka, who has been living in the US under a witness protection programme since 1991. Long presented to the family members of the US victims as a crucial eyewitness, Giacka's evidence proved disastrous for the prosecution case.

Giacka, it finally emerged, offered to provide the CIA with information after he joined Libyan intelligence to avoid military service in 1988. Such was the low level of the information that he presented to the CIA that by 1991 his handlers considered halting all payments to their dubious asset, who was costing them $1,000 a month. Despite a period working alongside both the accused at Malta airport, Giacka never mentioned Lockerbie or suitcase bombs to his CIA handlers at the time.

In July 1991 Giacka attended a meeting with the CIA, at which his continued employment on Langley's payroll was to be discussed. The next day, more than two years after the Pan Am bombing, Giacka presented the CIA with an account according to which Fhimah and Megrahi had carried a "Samsonite" suitcase through Maltese customs.

The defence also cited censored CIA cables to illuminate some of Giacka's other extravagant accusations. He claimed at one point that Libyan leader Moammar Qhaddaffi was a freemason, and that he (Giacka) was related to the former Libyan monarch, King Idris. It also became clear from the cables that at the time of the bombing the CIA did not consider Fhimah to be a member of the Libyan intelligence services.

According to Clare Connolly from the Glasgow University's Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit, "The defence cross-examination made it clear that Giaka's actions in providing this information to investigators could have been motivated by a desire for money and a wish to secure his future as a US citizen."

On other occasions, Giaka's reliance on US officials sitting on the prosecution bench was so blatant that UN observers attending the trial told the Sunday Times, "We could not see how Mr Giaka conducted himself, but the defence raised objections repeatedly to the looks that passed between him and the Americans... With other witnesses introduced at the American end of the investigation, through the CIA or the FBI, we have witnessed those types of exchanges."

The prosecution are so short of serious evidence that, despite the numerous delays, the trial is expected to last much less than the full year initially anticipated.

The PFLP-GC were the original suspects, and for two years after the crash most of the investigating authorities operated on the basis that the evidence against the PFLP-GC was overwhelming. The US intelligence services have played a dubious role from before the crash right through to the trial. It is a fact that several US Special Forces members died on Pan Am 103, and that their luggage recovered from the crash site was interfered with.

No trial in legal history has been so bound up with shifts in world politics, a study of which is very revealing. Initial accusations directed against the PFLP-GC regarded the Lockerbie bombing as a reprisal, organised by Iran, Syria and the PFLP-GC, for the shooting down of an Iranian Airbus on July 3, 1988 by the US. The December 21 1988 bombing came little more than a month after the Palestinian National Council meeting which effectively sanctioned the existence of Israel. On December 13 PLO leader Yassir Arafat expounded on this in his historic speech to the United Nations. The pro-Syrian PFLP-GC opposed the PLO's line, and, along with other Palestinian groups advocating the continuation of a military strategy against Israel, launched a series of raids designed to derail the PLO's developing relations with the US. The PFLP-GC had on numerous occasions been involved in fire-fights in Beirut with the PLO and had been implicated in a series of attacks on aircraft.

The change in focus to Libya was, at the time, widely interpreted as a political response by the US in line with its preparation for the Gulf War, with both Syria and Iran acting as crucial US allies in the attack on Iraq. Subsequently, the US used Lockerbie and other attributed bombings as a justification for imposing sanctions against Libya. The present case only emerged in the context of the Libyan regime's developing international relations, particularly with Europe, and after months of negotiations by Nelson Mandela and Kofi Annan.

If the Scotland on Sunday reports are confirmed, it would not be the first time that the Syrian government has dumped its erstwhile allies, in pursuing closer relations with the US. Following Syria's support for the Gulf War, Syria's then leader, Hafez al-Assad, handed over information on planned terrorist attacks, evicted Carlos "the Jackal" from Damascus, and latterly expelled Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Ocalan, allowing his capture by the CIA and subsequent trial in Turkey.

[RB: Regrettably, the Zeist judges did not agree that the prosecution case had evaporated, but swallowed it hook, line and sinker.]

A brilliant and forensically precise dissection

In the wilds of the Roggeveld Karoo we have been without internet access for the past three days. Here is what I would have posted on Sunday, 16 October had it been possible.

[What follows is the text of a review by Lindsay Bruce of Dr Morag Kerr’s Adequately Explained by Stupidity? that was posted on this date in 2015 on the Amazon UK website:]

A brilliant and forensically precise dissection of the fog and confusion surrounding the loading of the bomb in baggage container AVE4041 which took the lives of 270 people and precipitated the biggest murder investigation in Scottish history and an international manhunt involving almost every law enforcement agency in the western hemisphere. A noted veterinarian and biochemist, Dr Kerr takes us on a journey through the labyrinthine interline baggage handling procedures of 1988 and uncovers huge gaping holes in the investigation; lost opportunities, speculative leaps, rank incompetence, dodgy testimony, flawed forensics, and political expediency. With all the case evidence laid out in front of her, she patiently and methodically works through analysing each fateful step that led to the loading of the bomb, exploring all the possible contributing factors that lead us to one inescapable and irrefutable conclusion; the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 has yet to be solved and the hunt for justice must continue.

A superbly written tome that despite its mountain of technical evidence will have you gripped from foreword to conclusion, Kerr's analysis is top drawer. Humanised by anecdotes of thoughtful individuals doing their jobs amidst the horror of one of the world's most atrocious pre-9/11 acts of terrorism, her clinical detachment and professional evidence-led approach casts serious doubts on the legitimacy of Megrahi's conviction.

This is a must-read for anybody touched by the Lockerbie tragedy, and all those interested in international justice.

Lessons from Syracuse

[This is the headline over a thoughtful editorial published today on the website of The Roanoke Times (Virginia, USA). Regrettably, it does not mention the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s conclusion that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. But it is otherwise well worth reading:]

Virginia Tech’s football team plays today at Syracuse University.

Coach Justin Fuente’s squad will probably be too busy to do much sight-seeing, but any Hokie fans making the trip north may want to walk across campus until they find the Hall of Languages Building.

There, on the grounds outside, they will also find a semi-circular arc of limestone and granite, on which are inscribed 35 names and the inscription: “This place of remembrance is dedicated to the memory of the thirty-five students enrolled in Syracuse University’s Division of International Programs Abroad who were among two hundred and seventy killed on December 21, 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland in a plane crash.”

Then, underneath that, the sentence continues: “Caused by a terrorist bomb.”

The loss of Pan Am Flight 103 caused heartbreak across the globe. The flight manifest listed passengers and crew members from 24 countries – although most were Americans, and the contingent of Syracuse students returning home for the holidays after a semester abroad made the loss especially poignant.

Nearly three decades later, those hearts are still broken, but what happened that winter evening over Scotland continues to reverberate today — even in this year’s presidential election.

Here’s how: Terrorists in the 1980s sometimes targeted airlines, but generally not American ones. When Pan Am 103 took off from Frankfurt that morning for the first leg of its flight to London and then New York and Detroit, only one other US-bound American airliner had ever been targeted — and that attempt had managed to kill just one person, with the plane landing safely.

So when the Clipper Maid of the Seas — as the aircraft was named — disintegrated over Scotland at 7:02 p.m., we entered a new era of national insecurity.

The initial analysis by the Central Intelligence Agency focused on two possible suspects.

One was Iran. That made sense: Just months before, American forces in the Persian Gulf had accidentally shot down an Iranian airliner, killing all aboard. Revenge seemed a likely motive.

The other was the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — presumably hoping to disrupt some early talks between the United States and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

As it turns out, neither hunch was right. One relevant lesson to be drawn from that: Maybe it’s a good thing we didn’t have a commander-in-chief inclined to shoot first and ask questions later.

More than a thousand British soldiers and police officers spent months going over the crash site on their hands and knees, looking for fragments.

“If it isn’t growing and it isn’t a rock, pick it up,” they were instructed. From this painstaking search came fragments of the suitcase that carried the bomb, and the remnants of the clothing it was wrapped in — specifically a pair of size-34 Yorkie-brand men’s trousers with the label “Made in Malta.”

Investigators called on Yorkie’s main outlet in Malta, where the owner remembered selling just such a pair of trousers in December 1988 to a man with a Libyan accent. The customer stood out, the owner remembered, because he didn’t seem to care what he was buying. He also had bought an odd assortment of other clothes — pieces of which were all found at Lockerbie.

Through that, and other clues, investigators eventually laid the blame on Libya — and the government of strongman Muammar Gaddafi. Libya, of course, had its own reasons to bomb a US airliner; revenge for the 1986 US bombing raid which, in return, was retaliation for a Libyan bombing of a West Berlin nightclub that had killed two American service members. All those tiny clues were serendipitous: If the plane had taken off on time from London, it would have been over the ocean when the bomb’s timer went off.

In November 1991 — three years after the plane went down — the FBI issued arrest warrants for two Libyan intelligence officers, essentially accusing Libya of state-sponsored terrorism.

Here’s a question: Why didn’t the United States go to war against Libya in 1991? When Libya killed two Americans in 1986, Ronald Reagan had sent bombers; when Libyans killed 188 Americans at Lockerbie, George H W Bush sent only arrest warrants. Feel free to debate what we should have done differently — or ought to do today if such a thing happened.

Instead, here’s how things played out: Gaddafi denied it all but eventually began reconciling with the West. He turned over the two agents to Britain in 1999 for trial; one was convicted, one was acquitted. Libya finally admitted involvement and paid compensation. In 2006, the US dropped Libya from its list of countries that support terrorism and restored diplomatic ties. Oh, and Libya also halted its nuclear weapons program – a key diplomatic victory for the administration of George W Bush that he probably doesn’t get enough credit for.

Here’s why all this matters today: When the Arab Spring revolts spread to Libya in 2011, the United States and key European allies sided with the rebels. Gaddafi tried to argue that the West should support him; hadn’t he done what the West wanted and disarmed his nuclear program? Instead, we bombed him. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton boasted: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Viewed one way, Clinton (and President Obama) should get credit for doing what George H W Bush had failed to do in the 1990s: Taking out a dictator who had blown up an American airliner. That’s a notch on the belt on a par with Bin Laden, and ought to be a muscular talking point for a potential commander-in-chief.

Except for two things.

Firstly, our role in ousting Gaddafi sent exactly the wrong signal to Iran and North Korea: See, here’s why we need nuclear weapons. If Gaddafi had kept his nukes, maybe he’d still be alive today.

Secondly, what followed Gaddafi’s ouster was, as we now know, mostly chaos — first in Benghazi and today in a failed state that is a safe haven for Islamic State terrorists. That, of course, raises the uncomfortable question similar to the one often asked about the American invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein: Would the world be safer today if we’d let the killer of all those Americans on Flight 103 stay in place?

That’s a pretty horrible trade-off to contemplate, but it’s one that presidents often have to think about. You can think about it, too, as you watch Virginia Tech play Syracuse.

Al Megrahi wins legal victory in Lockerbie appeal

[This is the headline over a report published in The Herald on this date in 2008. It reads as follows:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing won a legal victory today in the latest stage of his bid to have his conviction overturned.

Judges ruled that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's appeal could have a wide-ranging focus, looking beyond the issues raised by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) when it suggested he might have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The decision came after the Libyan's lawyers lodged full grounds of appeal earlier this year and argued that the full appeal should include all the points pertinent to the case.

The Crown had opposed the move, arguing that it would be "absurd", "illogical" and incompetent in law for Al Megrahi to be granted a hearing with such a broad focus.

Today, three judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh rejected the Crown's position.

Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, said the court "holds that the appellant (Al Megrahi) is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits".

Al Megrahi's lawyer welcomed the "important victory" for his client.

Solicitor Tony Kelly said afterwards: "It is a complete victory for the appellant's position before the court and a complete rejection of the Crown's argument.

"The Crown employed lots of resources to try to restrict the court and they have been stopped in their tracks.

"It is an important victory for Mr Al Megrahi."

Al Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer, is serving a minimum of 27 years in prison after being convicted of bombing Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 270 people.

He lost an appeal in 2002, but was given a fresh chance to clear his name in June last year when the SCCRC referred his case back to appeal judges for a second time.

In its 790-page report, the independent body identified five reasons which led it to believe that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

Al Megrahi's full appeal is unlikely to be heard until next year, but numerous procedural hearings in the case have already been held.

In June this year, the Crown argued that the grounds of Al Megrahi's appeal should be confined to the reasons given by the SCCRC for referring the case to the court.

At a special five-judge hearing, Advocate Depute Ronnie Clancy QC said the commission's inquiries had been wide-ranging, having been undertaken in the UK and as far afield as Malta, Libya and Italy.

Granting Al Megrahi a wide-ranging second attempt to overturn his conviction would be "absurd" and "illogical", he argued.

But judges dismissed those arguments today.

Scotland's top judge, Lord Hamilton, told a procedural hearing in Edinburgh: "The court's conclusion is that... it rejects the statutory construction urged by the Advocate Depute and holds that the appellant is entitled to have his stated grounds of appeal decided by the court on their respective merits."

He said the court was applying the law as it currently stands.

Lord Hamilton went on: "Whether it is desirable, having regard to, among other things, the use of judicial resources, that a reference appellant should have unrestricted scope in what he lays before the court for adjudication is a matter for Parliament, but this court must apply the statute as presently framed."

Al Megrahi was not in court for today's hearing.

r Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster and is spokesman for the UK Families Flight 103 group, was in court for today's decision.

After the hearing, he said: "This is excellent news from the point of view of the relatives.

"The attempt was to limit what was submitted to the court for the second appeal and this is the criminal authorities saying they are not going to restrict the defence.

"Since our remit is to look for the truth, the more that comes out in court the happier we are.

"So I am really jubilant about today's hearing."

[RB: Regrettably, the law on this matter has now been altered by the Scottish Parliament. In any new appeal allowed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (eg in an application by Megrahi’s family) the appeal court would be limited to the specific grounds of referral allowed by the SCCRC unless the court was prepared, in the interests of justice, to permit additional grounds of appeal to be added: Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, section 194(D) (4A) and (4B), as inserted by Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 13), ss 83, 206(1).]

Preliminary stages of first Megrahi appeal

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

Relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing are travelling to the Netherlands for the first stage of the appeal, which will determine the fate of the man convicted of the atrocity.

A preliminary hearing will take place in Camp Zeist, near Utrecht on Monday for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

The 49-year-old Libyan was convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie, killing all 259 passengers and crew and 11 people on the ground.

The hearing before five Scottish judges - Lords Cullen, Kirkwood, MacFadyen, Nimmo Smith and McEwan - will consider various procedural and administrative matters.

Among those making the trip to the Netherlands are two British men who lost daughters in the atrocity.

Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter Helga in the bombing said: "We feel it's important that someone from the families is there to see that justice is done.

"We just feel it is right that we are there."

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 23, was killed, said: "We followed the whole of the trial so it makes sense to follow this stage as well."

Dr Swire also revealed how he and other members of the UK Families Flight 103 pressed Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for a full inquiry into the tragedy at a recent meeting.

He said: "We intimated that in our view it's extremely urgent to have an inquiry because Lockerbie was always an avoidable tragedy."

Monday's hearing at Camp Zeist is expected to last one day and set the date for the start of the appeal, which is likely to be next year.

Al Megrahi was jailed for life after being convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in January.

His co-accused, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, was acquitted by Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and Maclean at the end of the eight-month trial.

Al Megrahi's legal team, which includes American human rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz and high-profile British QC Michael Mansfield, lodged an appeal against his conviction in February. [RB: Dershowitz and Mansfield acted as consultants: they could not, of course, appear as counsel in a Scottish court.]

Although the full grounds of the appeal have not been made public it is thought that the defence will challenge evidence which came from Tony Gauci.

During the original trial the Maltese shopkeeper identified Al Megrahi as a man who bought clothing from his store shortly before the bombing.

Remnants of the same clothing were found around Lockerbie after the bombing and there was evidence that the garments may have been packed around the bomb.

Al Megrahi's Libyan lawyer has said he is confident his client will be freed after the appeal.

Lockerbie, luggage and lies

This is the title of a presentation to be given by Dr Morag Kerr on Friday, 18 November at 7pm in the town hall, Moffat. It should not be missed by anyone with an interest in the Lockerbie case who is within travelling distance of Moffat.

Do you know the truth about Lockerbie?

[This is the headline over an article by Robert Fisk that was published in The Independent on this date in 2007. It reads as follows:]

After writing about the "ravers" who regularly turn up at lectures to claim that President Bush/the CIA/the Pentagon/Mossad etc perpetrated the crimes against humanity of 11 September, I received a letter this week from Marion Irvine, who feared that members of her family run the risk of being just such "ravers" and "voices heard in the wilderness". Far from it.

For Mrs Irvine was writing about Lockerbie, and, like her, I believe there are many dark and sinister corners to this atrocity. I'm not at all certain that the CIA did not have a scam drugs heist on board and I am not at all sure that the diminutive Libyan agent Megrahi – ultimately convicted on the evidence of the memory of a Maltese tailor – really arranged to plant the bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988.

But I take Mrs Irvine's letter doubly seriously because her brother, Bill Cadman, was on board 103 and died in the night over Lockerbie 19 years ago. He was a sound engineer in London and Paris, travelling with his girlfriend Sophie – who, of course, was also killed – to spend Christmas with Sophie's aunt in the United States. Nothing, therefore, could be more eloquent than Mrs Irvine's own letter, which I must quote to you. She strongly doubts, she says, Libya's involvement in the bombing.

"We have felt since the first days in December 1988," she writes, "that something was being hidden from us ... the discrediting of the Helsinki (US embassy) warning, the presence of the CIA on Scottish soil before the work of identifying bodies was properly undertaken, the Teflon behaviour of ministers and government all contributed to a deep feeling of unease.

"This reached a peak when my father was told by a member of the American Presidential Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism that our government knew what had happened but that the truth would not come out. In the truth vacuum, the worst-case scenario – that lives were sacrificed in expiation for the Iranian lives lost in June 1988 – takes on a certain degree of credibility. The plane was brought down in the last dangerous moments of the Reagan presidency."

Now I should explain here that the Iranian lives to which Mrs Irvine refers were the Iranian passengers of an Airbus civilian airliner shot down over the Gulf by a US warship a few months before Lockerbie and before the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war.

The USS Vincennes – nicknamed Robocruiser by the crews of other American vessels – blasted its missiles at the Airbus on the assumption that it was a diving Iranian air force jet. It wasn't – and the Airbus was climbing – but Reagan, after a few cursory apologies, blamed Iran for the slaughter, because it had refused to accept a UN ceasefire in the war with Iraq in which we were backing our old friend Saddam Hussein (yes, the same!).

The US navy also awarded medals – god spare us – to the captain of the Vincennes and to his gunnery crew. Some weeks later the boss of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command – a pro-Iranian Palestinian outfit in Lebanon – suddenly called a press conference in Beirut to deny to astonished reporters that he was involved in Lockerbie.

Why? Was he being fingered? Was Iran? Only later did those familiar "official sources" who had initially pointed the finger at Iran start blaming Libya. By then we needed the support of Iran's ally Syria and Iranian quiescence in our attempt to liberate Kuwait after Saddam's 1990 invasion. Personally, I always thought that Lockerbie was revenge for the Airbus destruction – the PLP's strange press conference lends credence to this – which makes sense of Mrs Irvine's courageous letter.

Her parents, Martin and Rita Cadman, have, she says, had countless meetings with MPs, including Tam Dalyell and Henry Bellingham, Cecil Parkinson, Robin Cook and Tony Blair, and with Nelson Mandela (whose appeal for Megrahi to be transferred to a Libyan prison was supported by the Cadmans).

In a poignant sentence, Mrs Irvine adds that her parents "are ageing and in their anxiety that they will die with no one having taken real responsibility for their son's death are in danger of losing focus and feeling that they themselves are 'raving'. The (1980-88) war in Iraq meant that no lessons were being learned, and because my brother chanced to be on that plane we all now feel a heightened sense of responsibility for the world situation".

Then Mrs Irvine comes to the point. "What can we do? Now that my father is older and it is up to us, the next generation, to try to needle the government, but is there any hope? I am writing to ask if you think there is any reasonable action that we can take that has a slight prospect of success ... a refusal to understand and admit to the past is dangerous for the future."

I couldn't put it better myself – and I do have a very direct idea. If official untruths were told about Lockerbie – if skulduggery was covered up by the British and US governments and lies were told by those responsible for our security – then many in authority know about this.

I urge all those who may know of any such lies to write to me (snail mail or hand-delivered) at The Independent. They can address their letters to Mrs Irvine in an envelope with my name on it. In other words, this is an appeal for honest whistle-blowers to tell the truth.

I can hear already the rustle of the lads in blue. Are we encouraging civil servants to break the Official Secrets Act? Certainly not. If lies were told, then officials should let us know, since the Official Secrets Act – in this case – would have been shamefully misused to keep them silent. If the truth has indeed been told, then no one is going to break the Official Secrets Act.

So I await news. Ravers need not apply. But those who know truths which cannot be told can have the honour of revealing them all. It's the least Martin and Rita Cadman and Mrs Irvine – and Bill and Sophie – deserve. As for a constabulary which just might be tempted to threaten me – or Mrs Irvine – in a quest for truth, to hell with them.

“No pressure from Westminster”

[On this date in 2009 the Foreign Secretary, David Milliband, made a statement in the House of Commons about the UK Government’s rôle in the events that led up to the repatriation of Megrahi. It reads in part:]

In May 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair made his second visit to Libya. His summit with Colonel Gaddafi at Sirte covered the full range of our interests with Libya. Mr. Blair signed a defence accord and witnessed the public signature of a major BP exploration contract. Also agreed was a memorandum of understanding on negotiations for a judicial co-operation package, including a prisoner transfer agreement and agreements on mutual legal assistance, extradition, and civil and commercial law.

The UK had a model agreement, based on Council of Europe arrangements, that was the starting point for negotiation on our prisoner transfer agreements with any country and that provided the starting point for negotiations with the Libyans. Four points are relevant. First, a PTA provides for prisoner transfer, not prisoner release. Secondly, it provides a framework for transfer, not a right to transfer. Thirdly, a PTA cannot be used when appeals, including by the prosecuting authority, are outstanding, as in this case. Fourthly, Ministers in the sentencing jurisdiction-in this case Scotland-have an absolute right to veto any transfer.

This standard draft had no provision for any carve-out for any named prisoner. However, the Scottish Executive made strong representations for us to seek to alter the standard PTA so as specifically to exclude Mr. Megrahi. The UK negotiation team, led by the Ministry of Justice, sought in good faith to achieve this goal.

The Libyans insisted that the only PTA that they would sign was a PTA without any exclusions. So the Government had a clear choice. We could agree to a standard PTA with no exclusions, retaining for Scottish Ministers an absolute veto over any request for prisoner transfer in the case of Megrahi-a veto which they used in August this year-or we could have ended the negotiations to prevent an application for prisoner transfer. This would have set back our wider national and commercial interests that flowed from normalised relations, as the Justice Secretary has made clear. Since the PTA involved no prejudice to the rights of the Scottish Executive, nor pressure on the Scottish Executive, the Government decided it was right to go ahead. The PTA finally took effect in April 2009.

In September 2008, a new factor came into play. Megrahi was diagnosed with terminal cancer. The Libyans became increasingly concerned at the prospect of Mr. Megrahi dying in a Scottish prison. They communicated this to the Government and to the Scottish Executive. It was repeatedly made clear in reply, including in the Prime Minister's meeting with Colonel Gaddafi on 10 July this year, that the decision on Mr. Megrahi's fate was exclusively for Scottish Ministers and the Scottish judicial system.

Notwithstanding that any decision on release was for Scottish Ministers and the Scottish judicial system, the UK Government had a responsibility to consider the consequences of any Scottish decision. We assessed that although the decision was not one for the UK Government, British interests, including those of UK nationals, British businesses and possibly security co-operation, would be damaged-perhaps badly-if Megrahi were to die in a Scottish prison rather than in Libya. Given the risk of Libyan adverse reaction, we made it clear to them that as a matter of law and practice it was not a decision for the UK Government and that as a matter of policy we were not seeking Megrahi's death in Scottish custody.

In Scotland, compassionate release generally comes into play in the last three months of a prisoner's life. Scottish Justice Secretary MacAskill has set out the process by which he arrived at his decision in August this year to refuse the PTA transfer but to grant Megrahi compassionate release. He also set out the grounds on which he did so. As the Scottish Justice Secretary repeatedly stated in his announcement, this was a decision for him and him alone to take. The Government were clear that any attempt by us to pressure the Scottish Executive would have been wrong. At the press conference announcing his decision, the Scottish Justice Secretary confirmed that there was "no pressure from Westminster".

[RB: The full statement and the debate which followed can be read here.]

First preliminary hearing in second Megrahi appeal

[What follows is excerpted from a report published on this date in 2007 on the BBC News website on the first procedural hearing in the appeal allowed to Megrahi by the SCCRC:]

Lawyers for the man jailed for the Lockerbie bombing have asked the Crown to hand over documents which they said could help overturn his conviction.

A court was told their non-disclosure could indicate that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, 55, was the victim of a "miscarriage of justice".

The Libyan's legal team said they needed the papers to prepare an appeal.

They were granted an extension until 21 December - the 19th anniversary of the disaster in which 270 people in 1988.

The hour-long hearing - which Megrahi did not attend - was the first time the case has come to court since he was granted the right to a second appeal earlier this year.

The full appeal - before a panel of five judges - is likely to be heard next year.

Speaking at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among the 270 who died when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, described it as "a very ominous date".

"We are getting near the 19th anniversary of the murder of our loved ones," he said.

Mr Swire said he was pleased that Scotland's top judge, Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, seemed to want to speed things up as much as possible. [RB: The hope that progress would be swift soon turned out to be forlorn.]

However, he added that it would be wrong to put too much pressure on the defence.

Alongside the appeal for documents, Defence QC Margaret Scott said a new witness could discredit Maltese shop keeper Tony Gauci whose evidence was crucial in convicting Megrahi at a special court in the Netherlands in 2001.

Ms Scott also said defence forensic experts were working on reports to counter other evidence led at the trial.

The hour-long hearing followed recent speculation that US security services were blocking the handover of potentially crucial information about the timer which detonated the bomb on Pan Am flight 103.

However, Lord Hamilton, sitting with Lords Kingarth and Eassie, heard that the Americans were not involved.

"The documents don't come from that government or any of its agencies," said advocate depute Ronald Clancy QC, for the Crown.

He told the court: "The documents in question were passed to the UK Government on the basis that they were regarded as being confidential by the authorities that passed them over.

"That being so, the Crown has always taken the position that, if possible, confidentiality should always be respected."

Mr Clancy added: "The Crown has been actively pursuing the matter but today it remains unresolved."

Requests had been made to allow the Crown to hand over the documents and it was possible this might happen without the appeal judges having to rule on the issue, the court heard.

Mr Swire said that if the secret documents did not come from the US then it was "pure speculation" which government they belonged to. [RB: Years later it emerged that the the government in question was that of Jordan.]

In 2002, five judges heard an appeal against Megrahi's conviction but decided that the guilty verdict should stand.

[RB: My own report on the procedural hearing reads as follows:]

The hearing at the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh this morning lasted just under one hour. The judges were the Lord Justice General (Lord Hamilton), Lord Kingarth and Lord Eassie. (For brief biographies, see http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/session/judges.asp.) Mr Megrahi was represented by a team headed by Maggie Scott QC and the Crown by a team headed by Ronnie Clancy QC. For technical reasons of no particular interest in the overall scheme of the Lockerbie case, the Advocate General for Scotland was also represented; as also was the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway (because copies of the documents that Megrahi's lawyers are seeking to have disclosed to them are in that police force's possession).

The principal subject of debate was Megrahi's application to have disclosed a document relating to timers that is in the possession of the Crown and that was seen by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the non-disclosure of which to the defence was one of the Commission's reasons for holding that a miscarriage of justice might have occurred. The only major surprise in the hearing was the Crown's revelation that the foreign country from which the document in question emanated was not the United States of America. The general assumption amongst commentators (myself included) had been that the source of the document was the CIA or the FBI. Mr Clancy indicated that the Crown was seeking the consent of the foreign country in question for the release of the document to the appellant's legal team He asked for, and was granted, a six week period to lodge written answers to Megrahi's application for an order for the document to be disclosed. His hope was that within that period the foreign country would agree to its release and that the court would not therefore have to consider whether to make a formal ruling on the matter.

The other issue ventilated at the hearing was the timetable for Megrahi's legal team to lodge his Grounds of Appeal (as distinct from the "outline of proposed grounds of appeal" that had already been provided to the court). Ms Scott indicated that a vast amount of new material had become available to Megrahi's team from the SCCRC and also from the Maltese authorities and that this had to be considered and assessed before grounds of appeal could be finalised. The court ordered that the Grounds of Appeal be lodged before the end of the legal term on 21 December 2007, but on the understanding that additions and amendments might be required thereafter. A separate set of grounds of appeal on the issue of inadequate representation by Megrahi's original legal team was ordered to be lodged in advance, so that the lawyers criticised in them should have the opportunity of commenting on the allegations without further delay to the proceedings as a whole.

The appeal proceedings will be held in Edinburgh, but Ms Scott indicated concerns about arrangements for Mr Megrahi's repatriation to Libya in the event of his release. It is to be expected that satisfactory arrangements will be evolved, perhaps involving the United Nations (as happened in respect of Mr Fhima, the co-accused who was acquitted at the original trial).

The public benches of the courtroom were by no means full, though a number of Lockerbie relatives did attend, along with a substantial contingent of representatives of the media. The most common complaint from those attending was the difficulty in hearing what was being said. The acoustics were appalling and this was not helped by the tendency of the speaking participants (with the honourable exceptions of Ms Scott and Mr Clancy) to whisper or mumble.