Gauci's first “identification” of Megrahi

[What follows is excerpted from a review by Alan Taylor in the Scottish Review of Books of John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury:]

For the police, the key breakthrough in this many-tentacled investigation came on 15 February 1991 when they put twelve photographs in front of Tony Gauci and asked him if any of them showed the man who had come into his shop. Gauci, writes Ashton, ‘studied all the photographs, then told [DCI Harry] Bell, “They are all younger than the man who bought the clothes.” Bell asked him to try to allow for any age difference and to judge which most closely resembled the man. Gauci looked again, at one point picking up the card. He studied Abdelbaset’s photo three times. [DC] Crawford subsequently described thinking to himself, “He’s gonna pick him.” And sure enough, Gauci  did. “I would say that the photograph at No. 8 is similar to the man who bought the clothing,” he said, adding, “the hair is perhaps a bit long. The eyebrows are the same. The nose is the same and his chin and shape of his mouth at are the same. The man in the photograph No 8 is in my opinion in his thirty years. He would perhaps have to look about ten years or more older and he would look like the man who bought the clothes. It’s been a long time now [two and a quarter years] and I can only say that this photograph No. 8 resembles the man who bought the clothing, but it is younger.” At the end of the statement he added, “I can only say that of all the photographs I have been shown this photograph No. 8 is the only one really similar to the man who bought the clothing…other than the one my brother showed me.”’

This, adds Ashton, is a reference to Mohamed Abu Talb, another suspect whose photograph had appeared in the Sunday Times and which Paul had shown to Tony. But the police were not interested in that. They had their man, or so they supposed. (...)

It would be wrong to suggest that it was only Tony Gauci’s testimony which led to the conviction of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing. Equally it would be wrong to say that his conviction would have been obtained and upheld without it.

Approaching the end game

[What follows is the text of a report dated 14 February 1999 on the ITN Source website:]

British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook has said that efforts to bring to trial two Libyan suspects in the 1988 airliner bombing over the Scottish town of Lockerbie "could be approaching the end game".

Britain, the United States and Libya are nearer than ever to an accord on trying two Libyan suspects in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 but looseremain, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said on Sunday (February 14).

"What we now need is to tie down the general agreement to the principle of a trial in the Netherlands, with a very clear specific undertaking from (Libyan leader) Colonel (Muammar) Gaddafi," Cook told reporters.

"What we want to see is justice carried out in a fair and open trial.We now look as if we are closer to that than we have ever been so far," he said during a break in diplomatic efforts to broker a peace in the Serbian province of Kosovo.

South Africa said on Saturday that envoys from Pretoria and Saudi Arabia, who had been in talks this week with Gaddafi, had reached agreement over trying the men accused of the bombing of the Pan American jetliner over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.

A total of 270 people, mostly Americans, were killed when the plane blew up and crashed.

Cook, speaking to reporters from the steps of the chateau in Rambouillet outside Paris where the Kosovo talks are taking place, said he would talk to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan about the agreement later in the day.

Libya has been under UN sanctions since 1992 over its refusal to surrender the two suspects in the bombing, Abdel Basset Ali Mohammed al-Megrahi and Lamen Khalifa Fhimah.

"I'm not going to sigh with relief until the two men touch down in the Netherlands.But I am encouraged at the progress that has been made.After months of very hard progress, it looks as if we could be approaching the end game," Cook said.

Cook said on Saturday that Britain and the United States would not compromise on insisting that the suspects serve any sentence in a Scottish prison if they were found guilty by a court in the Netherlands.

Bert Ammerman, a New Jersey school principal whose brother, Tom, was killed in the bombing, said he and other relatives of victims won't believe Gaddafi has agreed to cooperate until they actually see the defendants arrive in the Hague, where a trial would be held.

[RB: Megrahi and Fhimah arrived at Camp Zeist on 5 April 1999.]

Donald Trump equates wind farms to Lockerbie disaster

[This is the headline over an article published in The Huffington Post on this date in 2014. It reads in part:]

Donald Trump has compared the development of wind farms in Scotland to the Lockerbie disaster.

In yet another bizarre attack on green energy schemes, the billionaire tycoon announced “wind farms are a disaster for Scotland, like Pan Am 103.”

All 259 passengers and crew on board the flight and 11 residents of Lockerbie were killed when the Boeing 747 plunged from the skies over Dumfries and Galloway on 21 December, 1988.

The crass comments have sparked outrage from MPs and grieving families alike.

He made the remarks after green campaigners in Scotland urged the Scottish government not to “waste another second” on Trump and his controversial golf resort development, after he lost a legal challenge to an offshore wind farm project.

In an interview with the Irish Times, Trump again showcased his true passion of hating wind farms.

“Wind farms are a disaster for Scotland, like Pan Am 103. They make people sick with the continuous noise.

“They’re an abomination and are only sustained with government subsidy. Scotland is in the middle of a revolution against wind farms.”

Susan Cohen’s daughter was killed in the disaster. She told The Scotsman Trump had chosen an “unfortunate choice of words.”

“I wish he had not made that comparison. Lockerbie was a ghastly tragedy that destroyed many lives and is beyond comparison. It is one of the great and terrible events of man’s inhumanity to man and therefore it’s of an order where it should not be likened to anything.”

Joan McAlpine, the SNP MSP for the South of Scotland blasted the “unbelievably crass,” comments, saying they “show a complete lack of respect to the families affected by the Lockerbie bombing – in the US, Scotland and across the world.”

In December 2012, Trump was accused of “sinking to a new low” and being “sick” for publishing an advert in Scottish newspapers which linked the government’s support of wind farms with the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The US billionaire revealed he was asked to support the Scottish government in the days following Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds.

Clipper Maid of the Seas

[On this date in 1970 Pan Am’s Clipper Maid of the Seas entered into service. The immediately following paragraph is from an article in 2000 on The Guardian website, the second two are from the Wikipedia article Pan Am Flight 103:]

The Maid of the Seas had been put into service on 12 February 1970 and had since made 16,497 flights and logged in 72,646 flight hours. But, in spite of the age of the machine, the pilots had no reason to worry as they made their final checks.

-----

The aircraft operating Pan Am Flight 103 was a Boeing 747–121, registered N739PA and named Clipper Maid of the Seas, formerly named Clipper Morning Light prior to 1979. It was the 15th 747 built and was delivered in February 1970, one month after the first 747 entered service with Pan Am.

At the time of its destruction, Clipper Maid of the Seas was 18 years of age and had accumulated over 75,000 flying hours. In 1987, it underwent a complete overhaul as it belonged to the civil reserve fleet of aircraft and this aircraft was retrofitted so that, in a national emergency, it could be turned into a freight aircraft within two days' work, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Lockerbie witnesses were paid

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer published in OhmyNews International on this date in 2009. It reads in part:]

In recent times, allegations have resurfaced regarding payments offered to key witnesses of the Lockerbie trial.

Specifically, there have been rumors that Majid Giaka, Paul and Tony Gauci were each paid about US$4 million for their help in the conviction of Megrahi for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. (...)

Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the Lockerbie investigation, forcefully denied that witnesses were ever offered any money.

'"I can assure you that no witnesses were ever offered any money by anyone--including the CIA," Marquise told OhmyNews. "This issue came up at trial and I spoke with the defense lawyers about it in Edinburgh in 1999 -- before trial. No one was promised or even told that they could get money for saying anything. Every FBI agent was under specific orders not to mention money to any potential witness." (...)

'A source speaking on condition of anonymity told Jeff Stein, the national security editor of the Congressional Quarterly, that a key witness, Tony Gauci, and his brother were each paid somewhere between $3 million to $4 million for providing information leading to the conviction of Megrahi.

'Moreover, former State Department lawyer Michael Scharf confirmed to OhmyNews that rewards were paid in the context of the Lockerbie trial.

'"I knew that rewards payments were made, but not the amount. The Awards for Terrorism Information program has been around since the 1980s, and has been expanded to rewards for information leading to the arrest or conviction of international indicted war criminals like Karadzic and Mladic. When I worked at the Office of the Legal Adviser of the State Department I was involved in the program," Scharf wrote in an email to OhmyNews. (...)

'Prof Black, often referred to as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, agrees. "The issue of payments made or promised to witnesses forms an important part of the Grounds of Appeal," Black told the author.

'"At one time in Scotland, if payment had been made, or promised, to a witness that was an absolute bar to his giving evidence. Today, it is simply a factor that must be taken into account in assessing his credibility. However, in order for this to be done, it is necessary that the court should know that the payment was made or promised. Failure by the Crown to disclose the promise or the payment is a serious breach of their duty to the court and to the administration of justice," Black said.'

Lord Advocate Peter Fraser ennobled

[On this date in 1989 Peter Fraser QC was elevated to the peerage as Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. What follows is excerpted from his entry in Wikipedia:]

Fraser first stood for Parliament for Aberdeen North in October 1974, but was beaten by Labour's Robert Hughes.

He was elected as a Conservative & Unionist Member of Parliament for South Angus in 1979, where he remained in the House of Commons until June 1987 (from 1983 representing East Angus). He was Parliamentary Private Secretary to George Younger, Secretary of State for Scotland. In 1982 he was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland by Margaret Thatcher and became Lord Advocate in 1989. He was created a life peer as Baron Fraser of Carmyllie, of Carmyllie in the District of Angus on 10 February 1989 and was appointed a member of the Privy Council the same year.

During his time as Scotland's senior law officer, he was directly responsible for the conduct of the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Lord Fraser drew up the 1991 indictment against the two accused Libyans and issued warrants for their arrest. But five years after the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, when Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was convicted of 270 counts of murder, he cast doubt upon the reliability of the main prosecution witness, Tony Gauci. According to The Sunday Times of 23 October 2005, Lord Fraser criticised the Maltese shopkeeper, who sold Megrahi the clothing that was used to pack the bomb suitcase, for inter alia being "not quite the full shilling" and "an apple short of a picnic".

Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, who was chief prosecutor at the Lockerbie trial, reacted by saying: "It was Lord Fraser who, as Lord Advocate, initiated the Lockerbie prosecution. At no stage, then or since, has he conveyed any reservation about any aspect of the prosecution to those who worked on the case, or to anyone in the prosecution service." Boyd asked Lord Fraser to clarify his apparent attack on Gauci by issuing a public statement of explanation.

William Taylor QC, who defended Megrahi at the trial and the appeal, said Lord Fraser should never have presented Gauci as a crown witness: "A man who has a public office, who is prosecuting in the criminal courts in Scotland, has got a duty to put forward evidence based upon people he considers to be reliable. He was prepared to advance Gauci as a witness of truth in terms of identification and, if he had these misgivings about him, they should have surfaced at the time. The fact that he is coming out many years later after my former client has been in prison for nearly four and a half years is nothing short of disgraceful. Gauci's evidence was absolutely central to the conviction and for Peter Fraser not to realise that is scandalous," Taylor said.

Tam Dalyell, former Labour MP who played a crucial role in organising the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, described Lord Fraser's comments as an 'extraordinary development': "I think there is an obligation for the chairman and members of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to ask Lord Fraser to see them and testify under oath - it's that serious. Fraser should have said this at the time and, if not then, he was under a moral obligation to do so before the trial at Zeist. I think there will be all sorts of consequences," Dalyell declared.

[RB: Readers may also care to be reminded of James Robertson's magnificent jeu d'esprit Oh, come on, it's all over now.]

The World Court and Lockerbie

[What follows is excerpted from Justice Weeramantry and the Bridges of Understanding published today in the Sri Lanka Guardian:]

When two Libyan men were accused of causing the explosion of a bomb in the Pan Am Flight 103 over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, on 21 December 1988, which killed all 259 passengers and crew, as well as eleven residents of the town of Lockerbie, The UK and US Governments requested Libya to extradite the accused so that they could be prosecuted in Scotland or in The United States. The matter came up before The International Court of Justice where Judge Weeramantry was one of the Bench hearing the case. One of the issues in the case was whether the Court had jurisdiction to issue provisional measures as applied for by Libya, in the face of Article 25 of the United Nations Charter which obligated member States to carry out decisions of the Security Council, which impliedly precluded the members from being obligated to carry out measures prescribed by the ICJ. Judge Weeramantry opined that both the Security Council and the Court were created by the Charter and therefore were complimentary to each other, ascribing to the court much needed credibility and jurisdiction.

As part of his judgment, Justice Weeramnatry said: “A great judge once said that the laws are not silent amidst the clash of arms. In our age we need also to assert that the laws are not powerless to prevent the clash of arms. The entire law of the United Nations has been built up around the notion of peace and the prevention of conflict… [T]he Court, in an appropriate instance where possible conflict threatens rights that are being litigated before it is not powerless to issue provisional measures conserving those rights by restraining an escalation of the dispute and the possible resort to force”.

[RB: My views on this very important World Court case can be read here. It is one of the minor tragedies of Lockerbie that the case was dropped after the Lockerbie trial. Had it proceeded, it is likely that it would have established that the ICJ had jurisdiction to review the legality of UN Security Council resolutions, which would have amounted to a significant brake on the power of, particularly, the permanent members of the Council.]

Guilty of monumental hypocrisy

[On this date in 2011 I reproduced on this blog Ian Bell’s column in that day’s edition of The Herald. It no longer seems to appear on the paper’s website, but it is worth repeating here:]

Sir Gus O’Donnell’s trawl through certain documents relating to the Lockerbie bombing has become very bad news for Labour.

It is bad in London, bad in Edinburgh; bad for reputations, bad for careers. On both sides of the border, the charge is the same: saying one thing, doing another. The only difference is that some things were shouted in one place and whispered elsewhere.

David Cameron handled the report with a certain vicious elegance in the Commons, in his best more-in-sorrow-than-anger voice. Too many things, he pointed out, were left unsaid by Labour ministers. Whether he would have behaved any differently in their shoes was a point he was happy to leave moot. He had certain aims in mind, and he achieved them.

Thus: blame Labour, blame the SNP, placate America, exonerate BP, and remind us that he was always opposed to the freeing of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on any grounds. Better still, for the eternal interests of Her Majesty’s Government, nothing in O’Donnell’s document obliged Cameron to deal with a real question: what of profound doubts over the original conviction?

No-one in the Commons, as usual, had a word to say about that.

Labour was all over the place. Gordon Brown was forced into a statement that answered no questions. Jack Straw, England’s Justice Secretary in the period at issue, fell to parsing any phrase that might provide an excuse. Meanwhile, the Scottish party found itself in a truly hideous position.

Either its leading members knew about London’s efforts to “facilitate” a release deal with Libya, or they did not. If not, what does that tell us about relationships between Labour in Edinburgh and Labour in Westminster?

But if all was known, what excused the many, vehement accusations hurled at Kenny MacAskill, the SNP minister who freed Megrahi? Labour in Scotland was still at that game this week, even when it was beyond doubt that its colleagues in London had connived in Libyan efforts. Straw, O’Donnell tells us, even thought of supplying a supportive letter.

It’s possible, of course, that some Scottish Labour figures were “in the loop” and some were not. The Scotland Office, first under Des Browne, and by October 2008 in the charge of Jim Murphy, was under no illusions. The latter minister was certainly given the minutes of calls between Straw and Alex Salmond. So what about Holyrood?

But this means that some passionate opponents of Megrahi’s release were permitted – encouraged? – to go on conducting a campaign against MacAskill while the truth was otherwise kept hidden. Take your pick: scandal, shambles, or a bit of both?

None is easy to spin, but Labour has done its best. Supported by the – no doubt unprompted – right-wing blogger Guido Fawkes, a tale filtered into the London media this week to the effect that MacAskill was prepared, late in 2007, to amend the Scottish Government’s opposition to Labour’s prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. The alleged price: cash to pay off human rights claims over prison slopping out, and devolved control over airgun legislation. And how tawdry would that have been?

O’Donnell certainly relates – of exchanges in November, 2007 – that “it is clear that HMG’s understanding was that a PTA without any exclusions” – meaning Megrahi, the only Libyan in a British prison – “might be acceptable to the Scottish Government if progress could be made with regards to ongoing discussions...” (on slopping out and firearms law). The Cabinet Secretary’s footnotes then refer the reader to letters between Straw and Browne in which the two allude to that “understanding”.

But O’Donnell’s very next sentence in the body of his text records that, “Kenny MacAskill restated the Scottish Government’s position that any PTA should exclude anyone convicted of the Lockerbie bombing in a letter to Jack Straw on 6 December 2007”.

So much was already in the public domain, thanks to the Scottish Government’s website. Nor did the SNP deviate from that position.

Labour’s attempt to establish otherwise this week depends entirely on a “leaked” email from John McTernan, Brown’s adviser, who gleaned his “understanding” from unnamed “officials”.

You wouldn’t base a Scottish election campaign on that, I’d have thought. But what else does Iain Gray and his Holyrood party now possess? Continued demands for the release of Megrahi’s medical records? Such material is redacted even in O’Donnell’s report, on data protection grounds. An oncologist would tell you, meanwhile, that a prognosis is not a prediction, but add that prostate cancer treatments – and hence survival rates – are improving yearly.

Even given the horrific scale of Lockerbie, an attack on compassion is tricky. It’s also beside the point. As is O’Donnell’s report, and Cameron’s lofty satisfaction, and Brown’s floundering response.

The fact that Labour has been found guilty of monumental hypocrisy is important in its own right, no doubt, but it is only one part of a larger argument. In the matter of mass murder, the question of guilt is paramount. Unless it is settled, beyond doubt, every other “row” is chatter, and distracting chatter at that. In the case of Megrahi, despite anything politicians claim, there is no certainty.

We do know, though, of $3 million paid by US authorities to Maltese brothers, Toni and Paul Gauci, for the sake of identification evidence. We know that Lord Peter Fraser, then Lord Advocate, would later describe the former brother, supposedly a star witness, as less than the full shilling and “an apple short of a picnic”.

We know, furthermore, that the forensic “experts” on both sides of the Atlantic, providers of still more “key evidence” at Camp Zeist, were later discredited thoroughly. We know Professor Hans Koechler, Kofi Annan’s UN observer, damned the trial as an outrage and an abuse.

There’s more, much more. We don’t know, though, why Megrahi still fails to provide proof of his innocence. We don’t know why no political party – the SNP included – is prepared to entertain even an inquiry into the conviction.

Those rows over the compassionate release of “the Lockerbie bomber” will do instead, at least until some successor to Sir Gus cares to examine a few more of the papers salted away in the hidden record.

Anonymous CIA officers say was evidence that supported fantasist Giaka

[What follows is excerpted from a report published today on the website of The Sun:]

CIA agents have revealed evidence that could have helped the controversial Lockerbie bombing prosecutions was withheld from trial, The Sun Online can reveal.

The revelation comes in an internal memo written by agents involved in the case following the 1988 bombing over Scotland that killed 270 people.

Campaigners say the document provides further evidence the plot was carried out by Libya and that the bomb was placed on the jet in Malta – not in Heathrow, as some have claimed.

It comprises interviews with seven anonymous CIA officers reflecting on the case and was published for one of the agency’s internal publications.

Much of it centres on Abdul Majid Gialka, a prosecution witness in the trial who had been nicknamed the CIA’s “Libyan asset” and “Puzzle Piece” because of his ability to link aspects of the plot.

Majid was a double agent who defected to the US from the Libyan intelligence service and leaked top secret information to the Americans.

His work with the CIA helped point the finger towards Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as the man who planted the bomb.

This was despite trial judges ruling they were “unable to accept Abdul Majid as a credible and reliable witness on any matter”.

But the CIA memo reveals there were further intelligence cables not shown in trial that could have supported his testimony.

It states: “[REDACTED] the court didn’t believe Majid on a lot of his points because the justices never saw a second, more extensive, batch of redacted cables, which would have confirmed much of what he said in court.”

It does not specify which of his claims could have been supported but suggests the reason for this could have been an attempt to protect CIA methods and US state secrets.

Today controversy continues to swirl around the guilt of al-Megrahi. Some claim he was innocent, while others say the bomb could have been placed on the jet in London and not Malta, where he operated.

The memo also notes a number of CIA operatives were denied the opportunity to give evidence – this time a strategic decision taken by the lead prosecutor – in support of Majid’s claims.

It states: “We all felt that it was unfortunate that they did not testify. They felt frustrated that they did not appear, because, had they appeared, they probably would have been able to bolster Majid’s credibility.

“They would have been able to corroborate and expand on a number of things that Majid had testified about but on which he had been badgered and belaboured and picked apart by the defence.”

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish MP who made the decision in 2009 to free al-Megrahi back to Libya on compassionate grounds, told The Sun Online Majid had been rejected by the court as a “supergrass”.

“That he was, but it was clear he was telling the truth about a lot of what was going on by Megrahi and his co-accused.”

MacAskill, the author of the book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, added: “Moreover, it shows that the CIA had other informants not just in Libya but at the airport in Malta.

“That has never been put before the courts. All this shows Libya was responsible and Megrahi had a role in it.”

John Ashton, the author of a book that suggests al-Megrahi was innocent of the bombing, told The Sun Online the note about additional cables was “interesting, but I have trouble believing it”.

He added that Majid “was such a problematic witness that the CIA would have been keen to disclose anything that supported his testimony”.

[RB: It does not surprise me that CIA officers should try now to contend that the disaster that Giaka was for the prosecution case was not their responsibility and that, notwithstanding what his CIA handlers said about him in the notorious cables to Langley HQ, there was material that supported him. It does surprise me (but, alas, only slightly) that Kenny MacAskill should seek to lend weight to this blatant CIA self-justification attempt.]

Lockerbie revelations deserve inquiry

[This is the headline over a group of letters published on The Scotsman website on this date in 2011. Here are three of them:]

Once more another dynamic is added to the case of the Lockerbie bomber and with it comes a whole set of new arguments as to why he was released.

Of course, what people and the media in particular appear to do is see the recent revelations of the previous UK government exerting pressure on the Scottish Government as only a part of the decision to release him.

However, we are still left with the elephant in the room and that is the whole complex nature of the Lockerbie case. One cannot seriously make useful conclusions with this week's "revelations" without looking at the wider conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

This case is not only clouded in terms of the release, but in terms of the process by which he was convicted. How is it that revelations on his release are discussed but none of the more significant revelations in terms of after his trial: ie the new evidence or evidence not given at the trial?

We should go back to before Megrahi was released. Some see the release of the bomber as evidence of global power politics at work. This is perhaps true, but why is it that the question of global power politics in Megrahi's conviction is never debated - including the legal trial of Megrahi?

There are, therefore, two different elements that are clouded: his release, but, more importantly, his conviction, by which we came to this in the first place.

People have the right to be concerned at the release of a convicted bomber but should they not be more concerned about how a legal system can convict a man with such evidence and how a legal system can be bent in the face of global power politics?

The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission stated: "The Libyan may have suffered a miscarriage of justice." An independent inquiry would be the only way to sort all these issues.

Jack Fraser

You note that Kenny MacAskill refused to use the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (Comment, 8 February).

In that case, why did he tell Megrahi that he could not be released under that agreement until he dropped his appeal? Megrahi promptly withdrew the appeal and was then released on compassionate grounds. One can only suspect that this was a ruse to bury the appeal and all it might reveal about the safety of Megrahi's conviction.

Steuart Campbell

As our deplorable politicians dive for cover for fear they are accused of moral courage, I prefer to recall the noble people who did seek freedom for Megrahi.

First among these is the GP, Jim Swire, whose daughter Fiona was a victim but who relentlessly campaigned for the unsafe verdict at Camp Zeist to be overturned.

He was joined by such seekers after justice as Nelson Mandela, Lockerbie's Robert Black, the UN observer Hans Kchler, Tam Dalyell and the leaders of the Scottish churches.

Even in the vengeful USA, there were brave individuals such as President Kennedy's valued adviser, Pierre Salinger, who protested the innocence of Megrahi.

He reminded Americans that, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not.

(Dr) John Cameron