[This is the headline over a report by John Davison just published on the website of Exaro news agency. The following are excerpts:]
Families of some of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing are to apply for a fresh appeal against the only conviction for the terrorist attack.
One option under consideration is to launch a joint appeal with the family of the convicted man, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Some victims’ relatives are liaising with members of his family in Libya, who are separately studying legal papers with the intention of mounting their own appeal to clear al-Megrahi’s name. (...)
Jim Swire, whose daughter, Flora, died aged 23 in the attack, told Exaro: “Since the 25th anniversary, we have realised that we are not going to get anywhere unless we take fairly brutal action against those who are obstructing us in obtaining the truth about the murder of our families.” (...)
Swire said: “One way or another there is going to be an application to the SCCRC in the near future for a further appeal.” (...)
But he saves his strongest criticism for Scotland’s legal system, speaking of “lies and denials” in response to previous attempts to question the official version of events at Lockerbie.
“I am incensed by the way people in Scotland have behaved over this,” he said.
He is keen to see the verdict overturned in court because, he said, the authorities had repeatedly used that conviction against campaigners.
“They say ‘We got one of the bastards,’” said Swire. “Oh no, you did not. You connived in a case that clearly was bolstered by false evidence. You owe us an explanation for that too.”
Swire has a reputation for steely determination, but has also been seen as almost mild-mannered. “There is a fairly belligerent kind of Swire this year,” he said.
Dang! I just did a half-hour interview with BBC Radio Newcastle during which I carefully said I pesonally knew nothing about any proposed third appeal but I had read in the newspapers that Megrahis's brother might be considering it. I needn't have been so circumspect.
ReplyDeleteDat's life daaaaaaaling.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like dynamite to me.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the Evil Empire going to do? Make up more evidence, probably from Libya?
Find three 'friendly' judges, who know that the conviction is uncertain but - 'Guilty!'
One thing we can be sure of - they are not going to run the retrial on what they have.
I seriously wonder if they'll fold. OK I know that sounds crazy, but what have they got?
ReplyDeleteMegrahi didn't buy those clothes, he was in Tripoli when the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, and PT/35b wasn't one of the Libyan MST013s. And I wouldn't bet actual money on it not being proved to be a plant either.
Do they want this all dragged out in court, or do they want to say something face-saving and hope the press will stay compliant?
Dear Rolfe,
ReplyDeleteI don't think that to be such a crazy notion at all. However, perhaps the odds you'd be offered at the moment may not make a trip down to the bookie's worthwhile.
Robert.
Mmmm. They've been saying loudly that they will defend any new appeal vigorously. Presumably they base that position on the opinion of the tame QC they got to look at the 2007 SCCRC report and assess whether the case was defensible.
ReplyDeleteI think that opinion was based on believing that they were going to lose the eyewitness identification. I don't see how that can possibly stand. However, if the person who gave the opinion didn't understand the underlying logic of the original judgement, it may be that they thought they could make the conviction stick simply on the basis of presenting Megrahi as being present at Luqa when the bomb suitcase was loaded on KM180, and although we have no evidence at all that he did this, he was there, he was Gaddafi's henchman, he was using a false passport, and he was connected to Bollier who made the timers. And if not him, then who?
Now maybe they could have swung it on that argument, though I have to say it's tenuous. And as far as "then who?" goes, I could make you a better case against Saviour Mallia actually. However, as I said, this ignores the underlying logic.
There was no evidence at Luqa that the bomb was there at all. The evidence from Frankfurt was tenuous in the extreme. The judges knew this. However, their reasoning seemed to be that since the man who bought the clothes was at Luqa when KM180 departed, then they could assume that the bomb really did travel on that aircraft, as the prosecution contended.
However, if Megrahi didn't buy the clothes, then the man who bought the clothes was not at Luqa airport when KM180 departed (as far as we know). If we reassess the evidence supporting the Malta-Frankfurt routing of the bomb in the light of that, it begins to look altogether more speculative. I don't know if the 2009 defence team were going to make that argument, but if they weren't, they would have missed a rather important trick.
Nevertheless, the second appeal was probably defensible. Arguably. I think they'd have lost it, but they could at least have come out the other end saying, oh what a shame the US government paid that witness $2 million, that completely wrecked our case, and so Megrahi [insert wording implying that of course he was as guilty as hell but now we can't say so] fell to be acquitted on a technicality. And of course we are now going to Libya to see who else we can possibly charge with the crime.
Now, though? The Bollier connection becomes much less important, as we now know that PT/35b didn't come from one of the timers he sold to Libya. And come to think of it, that fatally undermines the Libya connection itself. Even the Zeist court didn't believe that "we take responsibility for the actions of our agents" letter was an admission of responsibility.
And we can now prove the bomb was loaded at Heathrow, rather than really looked as if it probably was, which wasn't enough for the Zeist court. They're toast.
If I was them, rather than have that lot dragged into the full glare of publicity in a court-room, I'd be folding, then trying to find some form of words to imply that it was still only a technicality though and of course we were right all along. Then it would be down to hoping the press got Lockerbie fatigue and didn't dig any further.
I think that opinion was based on believing that they were going to lose the eyewitness identification. I don't see how that can possibly stand. However, if the person who gave the opinion didn't understand the underlying logic of the original judgement, it may be that they thought they could make the conviction stick simply on the basis of presenting Megrahi as being present at Luqa when the bomb suitcase was loaded on KM180, and although we have no evidence at all that he did this, he was there, he was Gaddafi's henchman, he was using a false passport, and he was connected to Bollier who made the timers. And if not him, then who?
ReplyDeleteThe SCCRC's opinion was that without the identification evidence there wasn't a viable case against Megrahi (para 21.100)
You'd certainly think that any advocate with two brain cells to rub together would be unhappy about standing up in court to defend the Crown's position in the light of all we know now. If a decision not to contest an appeal forestalls the evidence being led in court, maybe that will seem the least worst option to them. But any quashing of the conviction would provoke howls of outrage from certain quarters, not least those for whom, so far, the opinion of a court has outweighed all other considerations.
All,
ReplyDeleteThere is, of course, one further consideration, namely: Cadder Section 7 (appeals). If the Carloway recommendation to repeal that section is not in place by the time of an appeal, that then still gives the judiciary the power to reject the application.
If they were to do that, it clearly would compound the scandal enormously and expose the judiciary to having vast quantities of ordure heaped upon it. However.
It will be interesting to see just how MacAskill deals with this. These things can move at a nightly slow pace, just how long it can be dragged out for is anybody's guess.
One thing I do recall though is that when the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was giving evidence on the Punishment and Review Bill in early 2012, he stated his interest in having a review of the Carloway Review. I don't remember his identifying why he thought that necessary. The review of the review has yet to take place, I wonder if better odds would be available on that happening.
Oh what jolly fun it is to be a tax payer.
Pip, pip.
Well, you're not paying tax for this circus, Robert. That's our prerogative.
ReplyDeleteI really don't see them invoking Cadder on this, realistically. I'm unsure that it ever occurred to them, though I know everyone got mighty suspicious at the time. I'm becoming more of a devotee of the "cock-up theory" with every day that passes.
There have been several statements from various politicos about how desirable it would be to have all this tested in court. I think it would be hard to invoke Cadder in that context. Also, the whole point of the Cadder legislation was the desirability of "certainty and finality". You might get away with that for some wee nyaff convicted of a stabbing in a Glasgow alleyway when he was questioned without a solicitor present, but to declare that we won't re-visit Lockerbie because we want certainty and finality? They'd be the laughingstock of Europe, and we could take it to Europe then of course.
But yes, don't put you life on hold while this unfolds.
The SCCRC's opinion was that without the identification evidence there wasn't a viable case against Megrahi (para 21.100)
ReplyDeleteI'd forgotten that part. However, that wouldn't have precluded them from trying to make some sort of case stick even without the identification. Mainly, though, I think the game plan was to fight it as best they could, then spin the loss as a "technicality" which was all the fault of those dumb Yanks for paying the witness life-changing quantities of money.
The irony is, if they'd let it proceed on that basis when Megrahi was released, it might have worked. They might have been able to go on claiming they were right all along and it was just a pity the rules were breached. That's dead in the water now though.
Even more ironically, the suitcase jigsaw was discovered as a direct result of the second appeal being abandoned. Up to that moment I was just passively following the case. From that moment I became determined to work it out for myself. Eventually I figured out the suitcase jigsaw. I don't know if the defence would have figured it out for themselves if the appeal had proceeded, but let's face it, they hadn't done so in ten years.
Great work, guys.