Lockerbie residents testify at Camp Zeist

[What follows is excerpted from the account of the proceedings at the Lockerbie trial on this date in 2000 that appeared in a section of Safia Aoude’s Pan Am 103 Crash Website:]

Graphic accounts of the carnage inflicted when a terrorist bomb ripped apart a jumbo jet and sent it plunging into a Scottish town dominated the second day of the Lockerbie trial on Thursday. relatives of the victims attending the trial held hands as witnesses recounted the grisly scene of flaming houses and screaming. Defense lawyers did not question the five eye-witnesses who testified on the second morning of the trial to a grim court. (...)

Witnesses to the Lockerbie bombing have relived the horror of the night Pan Am flight 103 was blown up.  They described how they fled for their lives as flames and debris fell over the tiny Scottish town and of the stricken plane falling from the sky in a burning arc towards the ground.

Social worker Jasmine Bell, 53, relived how she had evaded flames and burning objects as she arrived in the Scottish town to deliver Christmas food parcels. She told the specially convened court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands how she called at her brother's home in Sherwood Park - close to Sherwood Crescent where the Lockerbie residents lost their lives. She looked up into the sky as her brother yelled: "It's a plane, get down."

Mrs Bell, from Dumfries, told the court: "I looked up and saw what I imagined was a small plane just going over my head. I ducked down and covered my head.  "There was fire all around me, there were burning objects and the fire was falling down from the sky and as it landed on the ground I was stepping backwards to avoid the fire and I stepped back and back until my back was against the wall of the house and I couldn't go any further." Then her brother, who had entered his home through the garage, pulled her into the house, Mrs Bell said.

"Everything was burning, the driveway, the lawn, the hedges, the rooftops, it just looked like everything was burning."

William Pattie, who watched as one of the aircraft's engines landed 20ft from him, lost his 56-year old sister-in-law Dora Henry and her husband, Maurice.  They were in their house in Sherwood Crescent and their bodies were never found.

Businessman Steven Teagle, 51, told how he was driving on an upland road in Cumbria on the night of 21 December, 1988, with clear views towards southern Scotland. To one side, he saw a white and orange flash in the sky and a short time later an orange, glowing object fell, creating an arc in the sky before it hit the ground, sending up two prongs of flame in a V shape.

Stewart Kilpatrick, who found the body of a young girl a few feet from his front door, said it took years for the town to return to normal. "I do my best just not think about it. It's the easiest way to get through," he said.

Robert Peacock, a 63-year-old lorry driver from Hightae, near Lockerbie, told how his son's girlfriend came into their house and said: "Listen to that thunder."  He told the court: "I said `That's not thunder' - the noise was continuous. I went outside and saw an aircraft."  The plane was flying at between 8,000 and 12,000ft. "I knew it was quite a large aircraft and one engine was on fire, with burning fuel spewing out. He added: "It went straight for Lockerbie. I heard an explosion, you could see the flames, the sky was lit up."

Kevin Anderson, 35, a plasterer from Tundergarth, three miles from Lockerbie, saw the cockpit of the plane, one of the few recognisable sections to fall to earth. He said: "It was like an atomic bomb that you see on the telly. It was up in the air and then came down."  Then, he said, debris began falling and the cockpit landed in the field, about 100yds away from him.  "I fetched the wife and we went up to look. I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

"There were bodies lying around the cockpit. I went to get my father-in-law from his house about 100yds up the road. We went over to the cockpit to see if anyone was alive. I had a torch. We looked inside the cockpit. I could see the pilot."

Car mechanic William Wilson said his colleague left work half an hour before tragedy struck and was never seen again.  When Wilson went to check the next day, he found only the man's  car next to a hole where the house once stood.

Roland Stevenson described the "thunderous black mass" which fell from the sky. The retired Dumfries  maintenance engineer said he shouted to people to run for cover as debris - including an entire wing - rained down as he collected his daughter from Lockerbie railway station. Mr Stevenson, 65, said: "The whole of the wing was descending vertically straight down. I could see it wing tip to wing tip, a clean wing, silhouetted against the clouds from the town lights." He went on: "A rolling ball of fire was descending rapidly from the sky." (...)

The most senior police officer in Lockerbie on the night of the Pan Am 103 disaster has said he fears the town may never get back to normal.

Retired superintendent Geoffrey Carpenter was giving evidence after the recess. He was among the first officers to reach the scene and became a key figure in organising the rescue services and coping with the aftermath of the disaster. Mr Carpenter told the trial he hoped the case would mark the last chapter in the tragedy. (...)

He said: "My first impression was that it was a low-flying military aircraft, but as the house shook I realised it was something more. Then there was an almighty explosion." He rushed outside and saw a glow in the sky and debris falling. Mr Carpenter said: "I saw a metal object in the sky. It appeared suspended. I believe it was one of the engines." The former police officer tried the telephone but it was dead, so he drove towards the scene.

He said: "I was faced with debris, pools of flames in the roadway and in gardens. There was a stench of fuel and acrid smoke. "I utilised off-duty police officers to evacuate the areas in case of another explosion," he said. He described how the Rosebank area of Lockerbie was in complete darkness with debris everywhere. "At Tundergarth the nose cone was sitting on a hill. There was evidence of bodies among the debris," he said.

Cross-examined by defence lawyer William Taylor QC, Mr Carpenter agreed it was "extremely difficult" in the aftermath of what Mr Taylor called the "cataclysm" to secure the disaster area for the purposes of evidence gathering, particularly as the debris area ran east from Lockerbie to the North Sea.

Political oversight of Lockerbie “really important”

[What follows is the text of a report published in today’s edition of The National:]

Campaigners who believe that the only man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is innocent say they’re encouraged that a Holyrood committee is to “watch with interest” a planned bid by his family to clear his name.

The case is expected to go to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which investigates possible miscarriages of justice, and could refer it to the appeal court.

MSPs on Holyrood’s Justice Committee agreed to keep open a petition from Justice for Megrahi (JfM) calling for an independent inquiry into his 2001 conviction for the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people.

Committee convener Margaret Mitchell said: “Recently publicity suggests that the family of Mr Megrahi will launch a bid to appeal against his conviction in the coming weeks so we will watch that with interest and see if that affects where we go from here.”

JfM member and former police officer Iain McKie told The National: “Lockerbie was under the radar with no politicians involved, but now we’ve got it in the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee and they are keeping it on the table.

“It’s really important that we keep political oversight of this in Scotland and we welcome news that the committee is to maintain a watching brief on Operation Sandwood and on the possible appeal.”

Vital evidence on Lockerbie was withheld

[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams that was published in The Herald on this date in 2012. The following are excerpts:]

Evidence which could have undermined the prosecution's case in the Lockerbie trial was withheld by police for a decade, a chief constable has revealed.

Statements about a break-in at Heathrow airport just hours before the December 1988 bombing were kept by Dumfries and Galloway Police until 1999.

A letter from Pat Shearer, the current chief constable of the force, has finally admitted the police delay.

Mr Shearer also reveals the Crown Office knew about the break-in before the trial, but failed to tell the defence team.

Since 1991, police and prosecutors team had maintained the bomb which exploded on board Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie – killing 270 people – was placed on a flight from Malta, rather than at the London airport. This underpinned the case against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of the bombing in 2001.

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the atrocity, believes the revelations would have undermined the trial. If the bomb was taken on at Heathrow, and had this information been shared, Dr Swire believes the investigation would have pointed elsewhere. (...)

Dr Swire said: "The evidence of barometric devices from Syria was rejected because they would have to have been put on the flight at Heathrow. We did not know then about the break-in.

"If it had been known about before the trial there would have been no prospect of getting a conviction. It has relevance to the foundations on which Mr Mulholland bases his approach to the interim Government in Libya, since the intention of his investigation still seems to be to link the conviction of Megrahi to the survivors of the Gaddafi regime. What about looking elsewhere?"

Mr Shearer's letter states no "suppression of evidence took place" but points out Dumfries and Galloway investigated the break-in in January 1989 and did not pass statements – including those from Ray Manly, then head of security at Heathrow's operators BAA – to the Crown until 1999.

The letter also reveals the Crown did not share this information until after Mr Manly himself approached the defence team in 2001.

MSPs to watch Megrahi family’s appeal ‘with interest’

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

MSPs will “watch with interest” a planned bid by the family of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.

The case is expected to be handed to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) which investigates possible miscarriages of justice and will decide whether there are grounds for referral to the appeal court.

MSPs on Holyrood’s Justice Committee agreed to keep open a long-running petition from Justice for Megrahi campaigners calling for an independent inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction in 2001 for the 1988 bombing which killed 270 people.

In a written submission, the campaigners said reports of the planned appeal bid indicate “a significant development for those pursuing the truth about Lockerbie”.

Committee convener Margaret Mitchell said: “Recently publicity suggests that the family of Mr Megrahi will launch a bid to appeal against his conviction in the coming weeks so we will watch that with interest and see if that affects where we go from here.” (...)

His widow Aisha and son Ali are expected to present concerns over the evidence which convicted Megrahi, including that given by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who died last year.

Megrahi lost an appeal against his conviction in 2002, with the SCCRC recommending in 2007 that he should be granted a second appeal.

He dropped the second attempt to overturn his conviction in 2009, ahead of his return to Libya.

Lockerbie relatives in dispute over film

[This is the headline over a report that appeared in The Independent on this date in 1994. It reads as follows:]

British and American families whose relatives died in the Lockerbie bombing are involved in an acrimonious dispute over a controversial new documentary about the atrocity.

Friends and relatives of American victims, who have waged a bitter campaign against the documentary and its producer, Allan Francovich, have severed ties with British relatives, who have expressed support for the project. Angered by the Americans' campaign, Mr Francovich is seeking damages from one New Jersey family after they described him as 'a journeyman film-maker ... for (the Libyan leader) Muammar Gadaffi'.

American relatives argue that the documentary project is 'hopelessly compromised' because part of its intitial pounds 650,000 funding came from Libya, through the Lafico investment company. Two alleged Libyan agents have been charged with the terrorist attack in December 1988 which killed 270 people.

But UK relatives, who have met Mr Francovich, insist he should be allowed to investigate doubts that Libya alone carried out the attack. Dr Jim Swire, spokesman for UK families, said: 'We are not apologists for Francovich but we believe he should be able to present his findings and be judged.'

Susan and Daniel Cohen, from New Jersey, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora died in the bombing, have waged a determined campaign against Mr Francovich, writing to broadcasters who expressed interest in the project. In letters to senior editors at Channel 4, which began negotiating to screen the documentary, they condemned him as a 'Los Angeles wannabe' who used 'fugitives and felons' for research and relied upon 'dubious' intelligence sources.

After Channel 4 announced late last month that it had abandoned plans to screen the film, Mr Francovich wrote to Mr and Mrs Cohen demanding an apology and seeking damages for their 'deliberate attempts to damage my reputation and interfere with my legitimate business interests'.

He said yesterday he was disappointed Channel 4 had abandoned plans to screen the film, but the project was continuing.

US presence makes trial far from "normal"

[This is the headline over an article by Alistair Bonnington that was published on the website of The Journal of the Law Society of Scotland on this date in 2000. It reads as follows:]

At their media briefing on the eve of the opening of the Lockerbie case, the Scottish Executive were at pains to point out to foreign journalists that this was “a normal Scottish trial”.  With respect, “normal” is not an appropriate word for this case.  Not only is the High Court of Justiciary located in Holland, sitting for the first time in its history without a jury, operating under a procedure set out by an Order in Council, it has also departed from the normal practice of our criminal courts.  It emerged at that press briefing that the Scottish defence team would be accompanied by Libyan lawyers, and the Crown would have US attorneys sitting with them on the prosecution benches.

As the two accused men have been receiving advice on this case from Libyan lawyers for a number of years, their continuing involvement in the proceedings is hardly surprising.  However, the role of the US attorneys’ work with the Crown team is more difficult to understand.  The explanation for this may well lie in the heavy involvement of the American Office for the Victims of Crime (the OVC) in these proceedings.  This body, established by the US Congress in 1988, is part of the US Justice Department.  It is exceptionally well-funded, taking the proceeds of fines imposed by US courts in drugs cases.  In terms of the “Crime Victims’ Bill of Rights” which the OVC operates, the crime victim, inter alia, has a right “to be present at all public court proceedings relating to the offence... and the right to confer with an attorney for the government in the case”.  The enormous influence of the bereaved US families in this case has been obvious to even the most casual observer.  They are understandably anxious to learn the truth of how and why their loved ones died.  Some clearly hope for a conviction of the two men and, if this is secured, will be able to pursue civil claims against the Libyan Government through the American courts.  Congress has passed a law allowing victims of international terrorism to sue the “sponsoring state” for compensation.  Millions of dollars are arrested in Libyan banks in the US pending the outcome of these compensation claims.

Whilst the work done by the OVC may well be something that Scots law and other systems could contemplate following, it is difficult to escape the feeling that there are some elements of a private prosecution in the Lockerbie case as a result of OVC involvement.  To what extent US attorneys are taking part in the decision-making process of the prosecution team is unclear.  Certainly, if the Lord Advocate’s assurance that this is “an independent prosecution under the law of Scotland” is to be believed, their involvement must be supportive rather than dispositive.

From an international perspective, the involvement of both Libyan and US lawyers in “the Scottish court in The Netherlands” gives the case an unfortunate US v Libya flavour.  It is to be hoped at the end of the day that the unusual steps taken to involve non-Scottish lawyers on both sides of these proceedings will not detract from the value of what is being done at Kamp Zeist.  It would be sad if Scottish justice is judged by the world on the basis of a case in which there has been significant, albeit understandable, compromise of our legal system.

Fresh Megrahi appeal "a step in the right direction”

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in today’s edition of the Sunday Mail:]

John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter Helga in the tragedy, supports appeal to overturn the late Libyan's guilty verdict as it is "a step in the right direction."

The father of a Lockerbie victim has said new moves to clear the man convicted of the bombing bring the truth about Pan Am Flight 103 a step closer.

As we revealed last week, fresh grounds for an appeal to clear Abdelbaset al-Megrahi are in the final stages of preparation before being handed to the Scottish ­Criminal Cases Review Commission.

John Mosey, who lost his daughter Helga, 19, in the 1988 ­explosion which killed 270 people, welcomed the development.

Megrahi’s widow Aisha and son Ali met with lawyer Aamer Anwar and Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the tragedy, in Zurich in November to discuss the appeal.

They believe crucial evidence was withheld from Megrahi’s trial.

Reverend Mosey, of Lancaster, said his family supported their ­concerns over the guilty verdict and want to know why then justice ­secretary Kenny MacAskill met Megrahi in jail before he was released on ­compassionate grounds in 2009.

John, who is among 25 ­UK-based relatives of victims ­supporting the appeal, said: “The question of who did it is our basic question.

“It’s important that we live in a society where the legal system ­cannot be manipulated for political ends. The rule of law is vital.

“I don’t think all of the truth will ever out – there’s probably too much at stake. But some things will come out, I’m convinced of that.”

He admitted to being “amazed” that Megrahi was found guilty of planting the bomb that blew the plane up over Dumfriesshire and said campaigners were ­supporting efforts to clear the ­Libyan’s name.

He said: “We’re approaching it on two fronts with our Justice for Megrahi group and this legal action on behalf of the Megrahi family, which is backed by British relatives.

“It is a step in the right direction into getting an inquiry into what went on and why it wasn’t prevented.”

John felt MacAskill was holding back when they met.

He said: “We had several meetings and found him to be a gentleman who treated us with dignity.

“I always got the feeling he would like to have been more helpful than he was allowed. I would be fine if he was called as a witness in the case.”

He believes US politicians exerted influence. He added: “It seems to us ­Washington leaned on Westminster, who leaned on the Scottish legal system.

“It seems to me it’s linked to something the Americans were doing, perhaps in the Middle East.”

Anwar said: “Without the likes of Rev Mosey and Dr Swire, it is likely this campaign for the truth would have been over a long time ago.

“John and Jim, I suspect, will never give up fighting for the truth because they know without it there can never be justice. I hope we can deliver that one day.”

Agreement reached on damages for Lockerbie victims’ families

[What follows is excerpted from an Agence France Presse news agency report published on the Arab News website on this date in 2003:]

Libya will pay $10 million to each of the 270 victims of the 1988 Lockerbie airliner bombing after accepting civil responsibility for the blast, Foreign Minister Abdel Rahman Shalgham told AFP yesterday. “My country has accepted civil responsibility for the actions of its officials in the Lockerbie affair, in conformity with international civil law and the agreement reached in London in March by Libyan, American and British officials,” he said.

Shalgham said full payment was conditional on UN sanctions against Libya being lifted after payment of an initial installment of four million dollars to each victim, and US sanctions after a similar payment.

After payment of the final installment of two million dollars, Libya would ask to be removed from the US list of countries supporting terrorism, he added. Saying that Libyan businessmen had already set up a fund, Shalgham went on, “I hope that the damages will be paid as quickly as possible, perhaps in the coming weeks.”

The total sum of $2.7 billion was the same as US officials said on March 12 Libya had offered as compensation in talks with the United States and Britain. They also said Tripoli was prepared to assume limited responsibility for the downing of Pan Am flight 103, something it has previously refused to do.

Dan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora died in the crash, stressed after a meeting with US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns that Washington was insisting that a statement of responsibility came from the Libyan government itself.

He said Libya’s payment was also contingent on individual lawsuits filed against the Libyan government by the families of the victims being dropped, as well as the United Nations and the United States ending sanctions. (...)

United Nations sanctions against Libya were suspended but not lifted after Tripoli handed over the two suspects in the case. The United States has said that UN sanctions cannot be lifted until Libya satisfies all of its requirements under UN Security Council resolutions, including the payment of compensation, an admission of responsibility for the bombing, the disclosure of all relevant information about it and a renunciation of terrorism.

US sanctions, imposed under different terms, would require those steps in addition to moves from Tripoli.

[RB: The Libyan letter acknowledging responsibility (which I played a part in drafting) can be read here.]

Parliamentary pressure to accept neutral venue trial

[On this date in 1998 Tam Dalyell MP secured his fourteenth adjournment debate on Lockerbie in the House of Commons. What follows is excerpted from his speech in that debate:]

Given the recent travels of Dr Jim Swire of the UK relatives group, accompanied by Professor Black, who had extensive meetings with the League of Arab States, the Organisation of African Unity, the Libyan leader and officials for the two accused, will the Government explain an almost total lack of willingness to communicate with the Libyan Government or to use some kind of communication to get out of the impasse?

I spoke last night to Robert Black, who is visiting Stellenbosch in South Africa. He said that the Libyan Government had stated previously that they would put “no obstacles in the way of their nationals going to trial”. The Libyan Government now say that they "positively welcome" their nationals going to trial in a third country. They have promised to

“facilitate those arrangements and to do everything to achieve that end”. I received a copy of a letter written today by Dr Swire to the Foreign Secretary—I have shown it to senior officials at the Foreign Office, and I apologise for the fact that I was not able to do so earlier. It states that present at the meetings were Mr Abdul Ati Obeidi, Secretary at the Foreign Office, Libya; Mr Zuwiy, Secretary of Justice, Libya; Mr Omar Dorda, the Libyan permanent representative at the United Nations; and, crucially, Dr Ibrahim Legwell, the lawyer representing the two Libyan suspects. The more important point is that they had an endorsing meeting with Colonel Gaddafi. Hitherto, it has been asked, "How do we know with what authority Libyan promises are made?" When the promise is made by Colonel Gaddafi himself, it is high time to accept Libya's assurances in good faith. (...)

Finally, I asked both Dr Swire and Professor Black, "Do you think in your heart of hearts that the Libyans did it or had anything to do with it?" Both replied separately and said, "In our heart of hearts, no, the Libyans were not involved." They are not naive people. That is also my view—and I do not think that I am being naive, either.

Lockerbie bomb families in plea to reconsider evidence

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

A doctor whose daughter died in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie has said that the right of families to know the truth about what happened is being blocked by the authorities’ failure to re-examine evidence from the trial in the Netherlands, which led to the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi for the atrocity.

Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the 1988 bombing, is among a number of victims’ relatives who believe Libyan Megrahi – who died in 2012 – was innocent.

In an open letter published on the Intel Today website, he said the evidence now appears to show that the bomb was loaded on to the flight at London Heathrow and not Malta.

That was a key part of the prosecutors’ case against Megrahi at the Camp Zeist trial, which heard from a Maltese shopkeeper who said he had sold the Libyan clothing that was found wrapped around the device. (...) [RB: The full text of Dr Swire’s letter can be read here.]

Megrahi’s family said earlier this week they would pursue a further appeal to clear his name.

Meanwhile, pressure group Justice for Megrahi (JfM) is still awaiting the results of the Operation Sandwood investigation by Police Scotland into nine criminal allegations it made against police and others involved in the initial investigation and trial.

JfM member and former police officer Iain McKie, said: “We have never been in a better place for getting to the truth. Sandwood has been a dedicated investigation by Police Scotland and its final report will be a seminal document.”

A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) told The National: “The only appropriate forum for the determination of guilt or innocence is the criminal court, and Mr Megrahi was convicted unanimously by three senior judges. His conviction was upheld unanimously by five judges, in an appeal court presided over by the Lord Justice General, Scotland’s most senior judge. As the investigation against others who were acting with Megrahi in this Libyan plot remains live, it would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”

Lockerbie accused's health deteriorates as appeal hearing opens

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

Doubt over evidence against Libyan convicted for bombing that killed 270 people during 1988 flight over Lockerbie

The health of the Libyan convicted of planting the Lockerbie bomb, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, has worsened and he is experiencing increasing levels of pain, his lawyers said today.

The opening day of Megrahi's appeal against conviction for killing 270 people in the 1988 bombing heard that he is to undergo a new course of treatment for his terminal prostate cancer, which has already spread to his spine and other parts of his body.

His lawyers claim he was wrongly convicted in 2001 on insufficient evidence, and is innocent of the bombing.

He was jailed for life for playing a prominent role in the atrocity when a suitcase bomb killed 259 passengers and crew on Pan Am flight 103 and 11 people in the Scottish town of Lockerbie on 20 December 1988.

Today's appeal hearing in Edinburgh came nearly two years after the case was referred by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. The commission raised substantial doubts about the reliability of the key witness against Megrahi, a Maltese shopkeeper called Tony Gauci, and said Megrahi may have been wrongly convicted.

Much of Megrahi's trial had focused on forensic evidence linking blast-damaged clothing to the suitcase that contained the bomb.

Megrahi was said to have visited Gauci's shop on 7 December 1988, but the commission said new evidence indicated the clothing was bought at an earlier date. There had been no evidence at the trial that Megrahi was in Malta on that date.

Last November judges rejected an application for Megrahi, who is dying of cancer, to be released on bail on compassionate grounds before the appeal after medical experts said he could live for some years.

Megrahi said afterwards: "I wish to reiterate that I had nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing and that the fight for justice will continue regardless of whether I am alive to witness my name being cleared."

Many relatives of Lockerbie victims support his protestations of innocence.

Megrahi's first appeal was rejected in March 2002. Since he was jailed in Scotland, a prisoner transfer agreement has been reached between the UK and Libya. The agreement was formally put before parliament on 27 January but the justice ministry said last night that the treaty could not enter into force until the instruments of ratification had been exchanged.

"Ratification will happen shortly. In the case of prisoners in Scottish jails, including Megrahi, and respecting the devolution settlement, any decision to transfer under this agreement would be for Scottish ministers and Scottish ministers alone," it said.

Megrahi petition on agenda for 2 May meeting of Justice Committee

[Justice for Megrahi’s petition (PE1370) calling for an independent inquiry into the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi features on the agenda for the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee meeting to be held on Tuesday, 2 May 2017 at 10.00 in Holyrood Committee Room 2. JfM’s written submission to the committee reads as follows:]

INTRODUCTION
As you are aware the above petition has been kept open by the Justice Committee since 8 November 2011 to allow various developments related to the Lockerbie case to be monitored by the committee.

A full record of the relevant correspondence with the Justice Committee is reproduced on the Scottish Parliament website.

In this submission JfM wishes to bring the committee’s attention to developments since the petition was last considered on 17th January 2017.

Clarification: In our submission to the 17th January meeting of the Justice Committee, JfM requested that the Committee continue its review of our petition until the Operation Sandwood, ‘police report has been fully considered by Crown Office and its conclusions have been announced.’

In their contributions at this meeting, MSP’s Stewart Stevenson and Mary Fee stated that they agreed with our request for, ‘the petition to remain open until the conclusions of Operation Sandwood have been announced.’

In a letter informing us that the petition would be heard again by the committee on 2nd May, the Deputy Clerk to the committee informed us that it had been, ‘agreed to keep the petition open pending the completion of Operation Sandwood.’

It would be helpful to clarify that as requested in our last submission, and agreed by your committee, the petition will remain open until Crown Office consideration of the police report is complete and any related decisions are made.

Crown Office: As committee members will be aware, a series of Operation Sandwood related parliamentary questions to the Lord Advocate by MSP Alex Neil have been responded to and published.

Mr Neil thereafter wrote to the Lord Advocate and received a response on 20th April. Copies of Mr Neil’s questions and the Lord Advocates answers, his letter to the Lord Advocate and the LA’s response, are attached for member’s information.

Operation Sandwood: JfM continues to hold regular meetings with the Operation Sandwood police team providing mutual updates on the enquiry process and related matters, and continues to have faith in the integrity and completeness of the police enquiry.

The submission of the police report to Crown Office has been delayed and our latest understanding is that it should be submitted in the next few months.

Megrahi Family Appeal: JfM has noted the recent publicity suggesting that the family of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi will launch a bid to appeal against his conviction in the next few weeks.

If these reports are accurate then this is a significant development for those pursuing the truth about Lockerbie.

CONCLUSION
JfM appreciates the Justice Committee’s continuing oversight of the Operation Sandwood enquiry and report.

Given the central importance of the findings of Operation Sandwood to any future prosecutions, enquiries or appeals, JfM believes it is critical, and very much in the public interest, that the committee continues to monitor these findings until Crown Office has fully considered them and announced its conclusions.

We would respectfully urge the Committee to allow Petition PE1370 to remain on the table.

Why have Scottish authorities taken so long to realise their dreadful mistake?

[What follows is the text of an open letter from Dr Jim Swire that appears today on Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer’s Intel Today website:]

The attempt by a group of UK relatives to initiate a further appeal against the Zeist verdict was rejected when the SCCRC requested guidance over our application from the Edinburgh High Court.

The High Court in the form of Lord Carloway ruled that we, a group of close relatives of some of the dead had no locus to request a further appeal.

We wanted the truth, that’s all.

Writing this in 2017, when there is thought to be widespread concern over the interests of victims in murder cases such as this, I find it astonishing that the highest lawyers in Scotland believe it right to exclude us in this way.

There has been profoundly coherent evidence readily and even publicly available for at least the last 18 years which seems to show not only that the late Mr Megrahi was not guilty, but that the whole prosecution case, alleging that the bomb was planted in Malta by Libyans, is not correct.

The totality of evidence now appears to show beyond reasonable doubt that the bomb was first put aboard at London Heathrow, and that its origins do not point even to the country of Libya.

These matters can only be resolved once and for all in a Scottish court of law. It should long have been obvious that without formal resolution they will not fade away.

The Scottish authorities have perhaps forgotten that even their own Criminal Cases Review Commission found six reasons why the Zeist trial might have been a miscarriage of justice.

Meanwhile the simple right of the relatives of the dead to know the truth as to all that is really known about the perpetrators and the failure to protect their loved ones, is blocked by the failure to re-examine the evidence used at Zeist, and its augmentation since.

Once it is confirmed that the prosecution case at Zeist was invalid, we shall all want to know why Scottish authorities took so long to realise their dreadful mistake, and how the prosecution case came to be built up in the face of so much knowledge pointing in a very different direction.

We all know the adage that ‘the law is an ass’, but the rigidity of the law, which strengthens that adage through commendable adherence to precedenct cannot be stretched beyond a certain point, even in Scotland, without inviting severe criticism. I believe we are now long past that point.

All of that might contribute to a better performance in the future, a hope close to the hearts of many relatives, along with their simple wish to know the truth about what still appears to have been a totally preventable disaster [initiated through lax security at Heathrow airport.]