[Dr Jim Swire has replied to the Prime Minister's letter to him dated 23 October 2009. This letter, and the one from Dr Swire that prompted it, can be read here. Dr Swire's new letter, dated 27 October, reads as follows:]
Dear Prime Minister,
Thank you for your letter dated 23rd October, replying to my letter of 24th August.
I can see how the contents of my previous letter may have misled you into thinking that it was purely questions surrounding the Scottish criminal court case against Mr Megrahi for which I am seeking an inquiry.
That however is not the case.
The Heathrow incident which I mentioned, and to which you naturally referred, was of course located at that airport. So far as I am aware Scotland has no locus in controlling that.
However one thing Scotland did have control over was that since the deaths of the crew (‘in their place of work’) occurred in Scotland, it was mandatory that a Scottish Fatal Accident Inquiry be held. It made a number of interesting findings.
It concluded that the aircraft was under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom, not of course Scotland.
It also concluded that the disaster had been preventable. So far as I am aware, the adherence of the United Kingdom to International ICAO aviation security treaties is not devolved. Yet the adherence of Heathrow airport to international treaties was shown in the FAI to have been deficient, even though, unlike the authorities in London, it was not aware of the appallingly irresponsible handling of the break-in there.
Now it is the duty of Fatal Accident Inquiries, as you know, not to point the finger of blame, but to define factors and entities which may have contributed to the deaths. In this case our FAI found that the aircraft, under the Host State protection of the United Kingdom had been loaded from empty at Heathrow airport, and that therefore the loading of the bomb aboard the fatal flight inevitably occurred there, since the incoming aircraft from Frankfurt had been a different one from the 747 which blew up, and every one of the 747’s bags was loaded aboard at Heathrow, some of them having been transferred from the Frankfurt aircraft on the tarmac at Heathrow. What the FAI could not comment upon was the material which I referred to in my previous letter, the Heathrow break-in, since it was not known to that court. It remained hidden for 12 years. Any meaningful inquiry will want to know why. The origins of that mystery too must obviously be sought in London, not Scotland
Instead the FAI was invited (by the late Sheriff Principal John Mowat), to presume that the IED which was said to have caused the disaster had ‘come from Frankfurt’.
A simple inquiry will confirm for you that the Heathrow night security guard (Mr Manley) who had discovered the said break-in had immediately reported it to his superiors and came shortly afterwards (January 1989) to be interviewed by the anti terrorist branch of the Metropolitan Police.
Now so far as I know, neither the state of security at Heathrow in December 1988, nor the activities of the Metropolitan anti-terrorist branch, nor the remarkable fact that the existence of this break-in event lay hidden for 12 years can be attributed to the devolved Government of Scotland, nor her separate legal system. Indeed Scotland’s Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew of the break-in during the 12 years it lay hidden.
Yet this is still far from a summary of why any inquiry to be meaningful must focus attention on London, not Edinburgh.
Following the disaster, from various sources (none of them volunteered from within the Thatcher government) we acquired details of a number of extraordinarily relevant and timely warnings. These came from abroad to the UK government either directly or via the US government. None of them came to Scotland.
Why were they not acted upon? The Fatal Accident Inquiry told us the disaster was preventable: why were the warnings ignored or wasted? Surely it is time that we were allowed to know that? The answer to this vital question must lie with the UK Government.
Yes the aircraft was American owned, but the FAI told us that it was the UK Government which had the responsibility for its security. Yes, we are told that the plane was destroyed by a bomb in its cargo hold, but the FAI told us that every suitcase, and therefore the bomb itself had been loaded at Heathrow.
You have now received a much more comprehensive letter requesting a full inquiry from our group ‘UK Families-Flight 103’ I am one of the signatories. I hope that the contents of this letter underline some of the reasons as to why I cannot possibly accept that any inquiry should be limited to Scotland, and I apologise if my previous personal letter of the 24th of August misled you over the main focus that the inquiry will need to address.
That focus lies in London and at the door of the then inhabitant of Number 10 Downing Street.
I look forward to hearing you comments both to our group’s letter and to the contents of this one.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Sunday, 1 November 2009
Malta won't probe Lockerbie witness
[This is the headline over a report in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. It reads in part:]
The government "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of key Lockerbie trial witness Tony Gauci, despite claims his evidence wrongly incriminated the Libyan man convicted of the bombing.
The Justice Ministry was forced to issue a denial yesterday after British newspaper The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed Maltese official legal sources saying Malta wanted to look at Mr Gauci's claims.
The ministry said in a statement: "Government categorically denies that any government official said that the Maltese government is preparing to look into the testimony Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the trial. The Maltese government is not prepared to do any such thing."
The government's statement was criticised yesterday by the man appointed by the UN to monitor the Lockerbie trial as well as the father of one of the victims.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, both men urged the Maltese authorities to press ahead with an investigation "in the interests of truth and justice". (...)
The government yesterday reiterated that since 1988 successive Maltese governments had "always maintained the bomb which downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced".
The architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish lawyer Robert Black, backed the government's stand when contacted yesterday, insisting that a broader inquiry would make more sense.
"I was very surprised by The Daily Telegraph story. I would be amazed if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness.
"Malta can be realistically asked to support an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie case, which would also include the testimony of Tony Gauci, which is the weakest link in the whole affair," Prof. Black said.
His view contrasted with that of Prof. Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial.
"I regret Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations. The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," Prof. Koechler said when contacted.
Only last Sunday he had urged the Maltese authorities to launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question Mr Gauci.
Prof. Koechler's report after the trial that found Mr Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.
Meanwhile, the father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Jim Swire, said any objective reinvestigation of the Al-Megrahi case "would be welcome".
However, he expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci.
"So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become that much depends on how far the Maltese are prepared to go to clear their island's name, despite the immediate US displeasure that is no doubt already descending upon them following The Daily Telegraph article," he said.
Dr Swire insisted the evidence from Malta against Mr Al-Megrahi was always "deeply flawed".
"The identification of the buyer and the date of the sale of the clothes were never satisfactorily established, as objective Maltese investigators would no doubt have confirmed," he said. Identifying the date the clothes were bought was also crucial, he added, since for Mr Al-Megrahi to be relevant to the whole affair the purchase had to have taken place in early December.
Mr Al-Megrahi was in Malta at that time but a thorough investigation would have led the Maltese authorities to conclude that the sale actually happened towards the end of November, Dr Swire explained, when the Libyan was not in Malta.
He also highlighted that a senior member of the Scots' team (Harry Bell) recorded during his visits to the island that the US authorities were offering Mr Gauci $10,000 up front and $2 million to follow.
"This must be significant and Maltese investigators might have been able now to access details of this scandalous attempt at witness bribery by looking at the documentation provided by the Megrahi defence team," Dr Swire said, calling on the Maltese government to show resolve and carry out its own investigation.
[What I intended to convey to the Maltese journalist was that an inquiry by the authorities in Malta confined to the testimony of Tony Gauci (which is what the article in The Daily Telegraph suggested was about to happen) would have been inappropriate. If the Maltese Government were prepared to institute an inquiry into the whole of the evidence supposedly showing a Maltese connexion to Lockerbie, I would support this unreservedly. But, since it is most unlikely to happen, what people should be pressing the Maltese Government to do is to support the request to the General Assembly of the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of enquiry.
A letter in the same newspaper supportive of the idea of an inquiry can be read here.]
The government "is not prepared" to investigate the testimony of key Lockerbie trial witness Tony Gauci, despite claims his evidence wrongly incriminated the Libyan man convicted of the bombing.
The Justice Ministry was forced to issue a denial yesterday after British newspaper The Daily Telegraph quoted unnamed Maltese official legal sources saying Malta wanted to look at Mr Gauci's claims.
The ministry said in a statement: "Government categorically denies that any government official said that the Maltese government is preparing to look into the testimony Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the trial. The Maltese government is not prepared to do any such thing."
The government's statement was criticised yesterday by the man appointed by the UN to monitor the Lockerbie trial as well as the father of one of the victims.
When contacted by The Sunday Times, both men urged the Maltese authorities to press ahead with an investigation "in the interests of truth and justice". (...)
The government yesterday reiterated that since 1988 successive Maltese governments had "always maintained the bomb which downed Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced".
The architect of the Lockerbie trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, Scottish lawyer Robert Black, backed the government's stand when contacted yesterday, insisting that a broader inquiry would make more sense.
"I was very surprised by The Daily Telegraph story. I would be amazed if the Maltese authorities thought it appropriate to investigate a witness.
"Malta can be realistically asked to support an inquiry into all aspects of the Lockerbie case, which would also include the testimony of Tony Gauci, which is the weakest link in the whole affair," Prof. Black said.
His view contrasted with that of Prof. Koechler, the expert picked by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor the Lockerbie trial.
"I regret Malta's stand not to conduct its own investigations. The government should be concerned that Mr Gauci wrongly identified a man who was convicted of a terrorist attack. The guilty verdict implies the bomb left from Luqa airport and I find it hard to understand why Malta has no interest or concern to investigate the matter and clear its name," Prof. Koechler said when contacted.
Only last Sunday he had urged the Maltese authorities to launch an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and question Mr Gauci.
Prof. Koechler's report after the trial that found Mr Al-Megrahi guilty of the bombing said that a "miscarriage of justice" had occurred.
Meanwhile, the father of one of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing, Jim Swire, said any objective reinvestigation of the Al-Megrahi case "would be welcome".
However, he expressed concern about possible US pressure on Malta not to investigate Mr Gauci.
"So interwoven with international politics has this dreadful case become that much depends on how far the Maltese are prepared to go to clear their island's name, despite the immediate US displeasure that is no doubt already descending upon them following The Daily Telegraph article," he said.
Dr Swire insisted the evidence from Malta against Mr Al-Megrahi was always "deeply flawed".
"The identification of the buyer and the date of the sale of the clothes were never satisfactorily established, as objective Maltese investigators would no doubt have confirmed," he said. Identifying the date the clothes were bought was also crucial, he added, since for Mr Al-Megrahi to be relevant to the whole affair the purchase had to have taken place in early December.
Mr Al-Megrahi was in Malta at that time but a thorough investigation would have led the Maltese authorities to conclude that the sale actually happened towards the end of November, Dr Swire explained, when the Libyan was not in Malta.
He also highlighted that a senior member of the Scots' team (Harry Bell) recorded during his visits to the island that the US authorities were offering Mr Gauci $10,000 up front and $2 million to follow.
"This must be significant and Maltese investigators might have been able now to access details of this scandalous attempt at witness bribery by looking at the documentation provided by the Megrahi defence team," Dr Swire said, calling on the Maltese government to show resolve and carry out its own investigation.
[What I intended to convey to the Maltese journalist was that an inquiry by the authorities in Malta confined to the testimony of Tony Gauci (which is what the article in The Daily Telegraph suggested was about to happen) would have been inappropriate. If the Maltese Government were prepared to institute an inquiry into the whole of the evidence supposedly showing a Maltese connexion to Lockerbie, I would support this unreservedly. But, since it is most unlikely to happen, what people should be pressing the Maltese Government to do is to support the request to the General Assembly of the United Nations for the establishment of a commission of enquiry.
A letter in the same newspaper supportive of the idea of an inquiry can be read here.]
Lockerbie inquiry ruled out by Gordon Brown
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times about the letter recently received by Dr Jim Swire from the Prime Minister. The article reads as follows:]
Gordon Brown has ruled out holding a public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. In a letter to representatives of victims’ families, the prime minister said it would be “inappropriate” for the UK government to hold such an investigation.
His decision was criticised by relatives who said it has left them with little hope of learning the truth about who was behind the attack and the government’s handling of case.
UK ministers say it is now up to the Scottish government to decide if it wants to hold its own, more limited, inquiry into the worst terrorist attack on British soil. The SNP government has ruled out an independent inquiry, saying Holyrood lacks the constitutional power to examine the international dimensions of the case.
Supporters of a UK-led inquiry into the 1988 attack that killed 270 people believe it could involve sensitive Foreign Office files explaining why ministers named Libya as the state which sponsored the attack.
In a letter to Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, Brown said: “I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.” But he added: “I do not think it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.”
Brown rejected Swire’s claim that a break-in at Heathrow airport shortly before the plane carrying the bomb took off rendered the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi unsafe.
“I understand the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not,” the prime minister added.
Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair, 29, was killed in the bombing, said Brown had let down relatives of the victims.
“By handing it back to Scotland it looks like they are trying to push it into the long grass,” she said.
Professor Robert Black, a QC campaigning for an inquiry, accused Brown of “gross political cowardice”. He suspected the government did not want further scrutiny of sensitive aspects of the case which led the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to report in 2007 that the conviction against Megrahi may be unsafe.
Black pointed out the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the UK government to hold a joint inquiry with Holyrood on matters straddling both parliaments. “The security of the United Kingdom and foreign relations are non-devolved issues and if Gordon Brown is saying these are not areas that would be involved in a Lockerbie inquiry then the man is insane,” he said.
[This story has now been picked up on the Telegraph website and can be read here. The Sunday Telegraph publishes a very moving article about Rev John Mosey whose daughter, Helga, was one of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The last three paragraphs read:]
The Moseys know that they cannot "move on" from the terrorist attack that took their daughter's life until they know the truth about who killed her.
Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal denied them the chance to hear new evidence in court that might have given clues about the killers. They, and the other Lockerbie families, will continue to fight for an independent public inquiry.
"I don't know if we will ever get the truth about what happened," Mr Mosey says. "But we will never give up trying. We owe it to Helga."
Gordon Brown has ruled out holding a public inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster. In a letter to representatives of victims’ families, the prime minister said it would be “inappropriate” for the UK government to hold such an investigation.
His decision was criticised by relatives who said it has left them with little hope of learning the truth about who was behind the attack and the government’s handling of case.
UK ministers say it is now up to the Scottish government to decide if it wants to hold its own, more limited, inquiry into the worst terrorist attack on British soil. The SNP government has ruled out an independent inquiry, saying Holyrood lacks the constitutional power to examine the international dimensions of the case.
Supporters of a UK-led inquiry into the 1988 attack that killed 270 people believe it could involve sensitive Foreign Office files explaining why ministers named Libya as the state which sponsored the attack.
In a letter to Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora, 24, died in the attack, Brown said: “I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.” But he added: “I do not think it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.”
Brown rejected Swire’s claim that a break-in at Heathrow airport shortly before the plane carrying the bomb took off rendered the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi unsafe.
“I understand the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not,” the prime minister added.
Jean Berkley, whose son Alistair, 29, was killed in the bombing, said Brown had let down relatives of the victims.
“By handing it back to Scotland it looks like they are trying to push it into the long grass,” she said.
Professor Robert Black, a QC campaigning for an inquiry, accused Brown of “gross political cowardice”. He suspected the government did not want further scrutiny of sensitive aspects of the case which led the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to report in 2007 that the conviction against Megrahi may be unsafe.
Black pointed out the Inquiries Act 2005 allows the UK government to hold a joint inquiry with Holyrood on matters straddling both parliaments. “The security of the United Kingdom and foreign relations are non-devolved issues and if Gordon Brown is saying these are not areas that would be involved in a Lockerbie inquiry then the man is insane,” he said.
[This story has now been picked up on the Telegraph website and can be read here. The Sunday Telegraph publishes a very moving article about Rev John Mosey whose daughter, Helga, was one of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. The last three paragraphs read:]
The Moseys know that they cannot "move on" from the terrorist attack that took their daughter's life until they know the truth about who killed her.
Megrahi's decision to drop his appeal denied them the chance to hear new evidence in court that might have given clues about the killers. They, and the other Lockerbie families, will continue to fight for an independent public inquiry.
"I don't know if we will ever get the truth about what happened," Mr Mosey says. "But we will never give up trying. We owe it to Helga."
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Malta to investigate evidence of key Lockerbie witness
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph. It reads in part:]
Malta is preparing to launch an investigation into the evidence one of the key trial witnesses who helped convict Abdelbasset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie bombing.
Government officials want to look at the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified the Libyan as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am Flight 103.
Mr Gauci ran a clothes shop, in [Sliema], Malta in 1988, and claimed Megrahi purchased an incriminating piece of clothing found among the debris of the aircraft.
But he has long been dogged by accusations that he concocted the story to receive a multi-million payout from the US.
Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds in August, is running an internet campaign to prove his innocence.
The former Libyan secret agent has accused America of "buying evidence" by paying Mr Gauci $2 million (£1.2m) under the Rewards for Justice programme.
The international outcry over Megrahi's release has finally persuaded the Maltese authorities to consider an inquiry.
A Maltese legal official told The Daily Telegraph: "Tony Gauci is an area where we have to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this.
"There was never enough proof, to be frank, on the circumstances of his evidence and there is pressure coming from many quarters on Malta to move to resolve the issue." (...)
A review of Megrahi's conviction by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007 also revealed that Mr Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police but had made a series of "contradictory" statements.
Critics claim he manufactured his testimony after prompting by American agents who already had Megrahi in their sights and were desperate to get a conviction.
Relatives of the Scottish victims of the bombing have also voiced doubts about Megrahi's conviction. (...)
Campaigners for an investigation into the collection of evidence and subsequent trial of Megrahi before a Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands said Mr Gauci was peripheral to efforts to find justice.
"I don't think he's of much use," said Robert Black, a Scottish QC who campaigns on Lockerbie. "He says what he thinks people want him to say." [RB: The reporter has completely misunderstood what I was saying. The trial judges' assessment of Gauci as credible and reliable was absolutely crucial to their conviction of Megrahi. If it can be demonstrated that Gauci was neither credible nor reliable, the foundation of that conviction completely disappears.]
Mr Black has co-operated with Dr Jim Swire, who's daughter Flora was one of 11 people who died in the village when Flight 103 exploded above Lockerbie in 1988 killing 270.
Both men are signatories to a letter to the United Nations General Assembly calling for an international inquiry into the tragedy.
"Malta is well placed to ask for this because its airport was stigmatised by the verdict," Mr Black said. "Malta has proved it could not be involved. It was in fact one of the very few places in the world that carried out physical reconciliation by baggage handlers at that time."
Dr Swire has threatened the government with legal action to overturn the Lockerbie verdict.
Mr Gauci now refuses to respond to questions about his controversial testimony. His last known residence was a well-guarded house shared with his brother in the Maltese suburb.
[What follows is from a report on the website of the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
Malta has denied reports in the Daily Telegraph that it was to investigate the evidence of one of the key witnesses who helped convict the Lockerbie bomber.
According to the newspaper, the Maltese government wants to examine the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am flight 103. (...)
The Telegraph quoted a Maltese legal official as saying: "Tony Gauci is an area we want to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this."
But Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told timesofmalta.com the report was untrue.
[The MaltaMedia website report on the issue contains the following:]
The Government has categorically denied that any Government official said that the Maltese Government is preparing to look into the testimony that Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the said trial. The Maltese Government is not prepared to do any such thing.
Since 1988 successive Maltese Governments have always maintained that the bomb which downed the Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced. The Maltese Government hopes that this statement will put an end to this kind of speculation once and for all.
Malta is preparing to launch an investigation into the evidence one of the key trial witnesses who helped convict Abdelbasset al-Megrahi over the Lockerbie bombing.
Government officials want to look at the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified the Libyan as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am Flight 103.
Mr Gauci ran a clothes shop, in [Sliema], Malta in 1988, and claimed Megrahi purchased an incriminating piece of clothing found among the debris of the aircraft.
But he has long been dogged by accusations that he concocted the story to receive a multi-million payout from the US.
Megrahi, who was released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds in August, is running an internet campaign to prove his innocence.
The former Libyan secret agent has accused America of "buying evidence" by paying Mr Gauci $2 million (£1.2m) under the Rewards for Justice programme.
The international outcry over Megrahi's release has finally persuaded the Maltese authorities to consider an inquiry.
A Maltese legal official told The Daily Telegraph: "Tony Gauci is an area where we have to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this.
"There was never enough proof, to be frank, on the circumstances of his evidence and there is pressure coming from many quarters on Malta to move to resolve the issue." (...)
A review of Megrahi's conviction by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007 also revealed that Mr Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police but had made a series of "contradictory" statements.
Critics claim he manufactured his testimony after prompting by American agents who already had Megrahi in their sights and were desperate to get a conviction.
Relatives of the Scottish victims of the bombing have also voiced doubts about Megrahi's conviction. (...)
Campaigners for an investigation into the collection of evidence and subsequent trial of Megrahi before a Scottish court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands said Mr Gauci was peripheral to efforts to find justice.
"I don't think he's of much use," said Robert Black, a Scottish QC who campaigns on Lockerbie. "He says what he thinks people want him to say." [RB: The reporter has completely misunderstood what I was saying. The trial judges' assessment of Gauci as credible and reliable was absolutely crucial to their conviction of Megrahi. If it can be demonstrated that Gauci was neither credible nor reliable, the foundation of that conviction completely disappears.]
Mr Black has co-operated with Dr Jim Swire, who's daughter Flora was one of 11 people who died in the village when Flight 103 exploded above Lockerbie in 1988 killing 270.
Both men are signatories to a letter to the United Nations General Assembly calling for an international inquiry into the tragedy.
"Malta is well placed to ask for this because its airport was stigmatised by the verdict," Mr Black said. "Malta has proved it could not be involved. It was in fact one of the very few places in the world that carried out physical reconciliation by baggage handlers at that time."
Dr Swire has threatened the government with legal action to overturn the Lockerbie verdict.
Mr Gauci now refuses to respond to questions about his controversial testimony. His last known residence was a well-guarded house shared with his brother in the Maltese suburb.
[What follows is from a report on the website of the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
Malta has denied reports in the Daily Telegraph that it was to investigate the evidence of one of the key witnesses who helped convict the Lockerbie bomber.
According to the newspaper, the Maltese government wants to examine the claims of Tony Gauci, the shopkeeper who identified Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi as the man responsible for placing explosives on Pan Am flight 103. (...)
The Telegraph quoted a Maltese legal official as saying: "Tony Gauci is an area we want to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this."
But Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici told timesofmalta.com the report was untrue.
[The MaltaMedia website report on the issue contains the following:]
The Government has categorically denied that any Government official said that the Maltese Government is preparing to look into the testimony that Maltese national Tony Gauci gave during the said trial. The Maltese Government is not prepared to do any such thing.
Since 1988 successive Maltese Governments have always maintained that the bomb which downed the Pan Am flight 103 had not departed from Malta and ample proof of this was produced. The Maltese Government hopes that this statement will put an end to this kind of speculation once and for all.
Friday, 30 October 2009
Lockerbie extradition suggestion ‘was utter nonsense’
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
The leading expert on the Lockerbie trial has accused the US ambassador to Britain of talking “utter nonsense” by saying America could have sought extradition of those involved in the bombing.
Robert Black, the professor who was instrumental in enabling the Lockerbie trial to be held at Camp Zeist in Holland, ridiculed the whole idea of extradition.
US Ambassador Louis B Susman said the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi strained relations between the US and Scotland but caused no lasting damage.
He told BBC Scotland: “We never anticipated his release. I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on.”
He added: “Good friends disagree. I compare it sometimes to a marriage.”
Mr Susman was speaking during his first official visit to Scotland. Mr Salmond hosted a reception where the ambassador launched an exchange programme to strengthen links between the countries.
Professor Black said: “If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah, but there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possi-bility that extradition would be effected voluntarily.”
If the ambassador was referring to the period after Megrahi’s conviction, his comment was “utter nonsense” because none of the diplomacy would have worked.
[The last sentence does not accurately reflect what I said. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, if extradition had been sought after Mr Megrahi was convicted the application would have been summarily dismissed by the Scottish courts because there was no warrant for it in the legislation governing extradition.
The report on the issue in The Times contains the following:
'Mr Susman said in a television interview: “We never anticipated his release. If we had thought he would be released we would have asked for extradition early on.” (...)
'However, Mr Susman’s view was challenged last night by Scottish legal experts and politicians who pointed out that although many of the Lockerbie victims were American citizens, the crime had taken place over Scottish soil, and therefore al-Megrahi could not have stood trial in the US. [RB: The aircraft was registered in the United States and 189 of those who died were US citizens. There was accordingly never any legal doubt that the accused could have been tried in the United States. The problem was that there was no US-Libya extradition treaty and never the remotest chance that the suspects would be handed over voluntarily into US hands.]
'Given the poor relations between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the US Government at the time, there was never any chance, they said, that the Libyans would have allowed al-Megrahi to be tried in the US. They also pointed out that the international agreement that allowed al-Megrahi’s trial to go ahead in the Netherlands stipulated that any sentence handed down by the Scottish court would be served in Scotland.
'However, they added that Mr Susman’s comments may reflect the continuing anger felt in Washington and among victims’ relatives who say that they were repeatedly promised by the British Government that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland.
'Scottish opposition parties that opposed the release criticised Mr Susman’s views. The Scottish Tories said that while the decision to release al-Megrahi was “profoundly wrong”, it was a matter for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats agreed, saying: “Given that one of the fundamental principles of Scots law is that somebody cannot be tried for the same crime twice, it’s difficult to see what case the US Government could have put for extradition.”'
The report in The Scotsman contains the following:
'"We never anticipated his release," said Mr Susman. "I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on." (...)
'But Professor Robert Black, who was one of the architects of the Camp Zeist agreement which saw Megrahi handed over by the Libyans for trial in 2000, described the comments as "utter rubbish".
'"The Americans know that Libya would never have handed over Mr Megrahi for trial in America," he said. (...)
'Susan Cohen, an American whose daughter was killed in the attack, said: "I always thought we should have gone for extradition. Events proved me right."'
RB: After the announcement in Scotland and in the United States in November 1991 that charges had been brought against Megrahi and Fhimah, both countries sought the extradition of the suspects through diplomatic channels. The US did, in Susan Cohen's words, "go for extradition". These attempts, however, failed. That was precisely the reason for the moves, in which I played a part, to set up a Scottish non-jury court in the Netherlands which might induce the suspects to surrender voluntarily for trial.]
The leading expert on the Lockerbie trial has accused the US ambassador to Britain of talking “utter nonsense” by saying America could have sought extradition of those involved in the bombing.
Robert Black, the professor who was instrumental in enabling the Lockerbie trial to be held at Camp Zeist in Holland, ridiculed the whole idea of extradition.
US Ambassador Louis B Susman said the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi strained relations between the US and Scotland but caused no lasting damage.
He told BBC Scotland: “We never anticipated his release. I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on.”
He added: “Good friends disagree. I compare it sometimes to a marriage.”
Mr Susman was speaking during his first official visit to Scotland. Mr Salmond hosted a reception where the ambassador launched an exchange programme to strengthen links between the countries.
Professor Black said: “If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah, but there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possi-bility that extradition would be effected voluntarily.”
If the ambassador was referring to the period after Megrahi’s conviction, his comment was “utter nonsense” because none of the diplomacy would have worked.
[The last sentence does not accurately reflect what I said. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, if extradition had been sought after Mr Megrahi was convicted the application would have been summarily dismissed by the Scottish courts because there was no warrant for it in the legislation governing extradition.
The report on the issue in The Times contains the following:
'Mr Susman said in a television interview: “We never anticipated his release. If we had thought he would be released we would have asked for extradition early on.” (...)
'However, Mr Susman’s view was challenged last night by Scottish legal experts and politicians who pointed out that although many of the Lockerbie victims were American citizens, the crime had taken place over Scottish soil, and therefore al-Megrahi could not have stood trial in the US. [RB: The aircraft was registered in the United States and 189 of those who died were US citizens. There was accordingly never any legal doubt that the accused could have been tried in the United States. The problem was that there was no US-Libya extradition treaty and never the remotest chance that the suspects would be handed over voluntarily into US hands.]
'Given the poor relations between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the US Government at the time, there was never any chance, they said, that the Libyans would have allowed al-Megrahi to be tried in the US. They also pointed out that the international agreement that allowed al-Megrahi’s trial to go ahead in the Netherlands stipulated that any sentence handed down by the Scottish court would be served in Scotland.
'However, they added that Mr Susman’s comments may reflect the continuing anger felt in Washington and among victims’ relatives who say that they were repeatedly promised by the British Government that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland.
'Scottish opposition parties that opposed the release criticised Mr Susman’s views. The Scottish Tories said that while the decision to release al-Megrahi was “profoundly wrong”, it was a matter for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats agreed, saying: “Given that one of the fundamental principles of Scots law is that somebody cannot be tried for the same crime twice, it’s difficult to see what case the US Government could have put for extradition.”'
The report in The Scotsman contains the following:
'"We never anticipated his release," said Mr Susman. "I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on." (...)
'But Professor Robert Black, who was one of the architects of the Camp Zeist agreement which saw Megrahi handed over by the Libyans for trial in 2000, described the comments as "utter rubbish".
'"The Americans know that Libya would never have handed over Mr Megrahi for trial in America," he said. (...)
'Susan Cohen, an American whose daughter was killed in the attack, said: "I always thought we should have gone for extradition. Events proved me right."'
RB: After the announcement in Scotland and in the United States in November 1991 that charges had been brought against Megrahi and Fhimah, both countries sought the extradition of the suspects through diplomatic channels. The US did, in Susan Cohen's words, "go for extradition". These attempts, however, failed. That was precisely the reason for the moves, in which I played a part, to set up a Scottish non-jury court in the Netherlands which might induce the suspects to surrender voluntarily for trial.]
Copping-out on Lockerbie
Government Ministers in London and Edinburgh are playing a sordid game of pass the buck over the Lockerbie disaster.
Now that Libyan bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has been sent home, relatives of the 270 people killed in the atrocity want a public inquiry.
In a fair imitation of Pontius Pilate, Foreign Secretary David Miliband washes his hands of responsibility, saying such an investigation "should be a matter for the Scots".
Alex Salmond's SNP Government claims an international inquiry would go "well beyond our restricted remit and responsibilities", and should be carried out by "those with the required powers" - ie, the UK Government.
With both London and Edinburgh evading the issue, the poor cops in Dumfries have been ordered to reopen the worst case of terrorist murder in British history 21 years after the event.
This police investigation looks like a smokescreen behind which politicians in both capitals can retire. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, suspects as much. "If it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected, then I would be livid," he says. Prepare to get cross, Jim.
[The above is the text of an article by Paul Routledge in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. Hits the nail on the head, I think.]
Now that Libyan bomber Abdelbasset al-Megrahi has been sent home, relatives of the 270 people killed in the atrocity want a public inquiry.
In a fair imitation of Pontius Pilate, Foreign Secretary David Miliband washes his hands of responsibility, saying such an investigation "should be a matter for the Scots".
Alex Salmond's SNP Government claims an international inquiry would go "well beyond our restricted remit and responsibilities", and should be carried out by "those with the required powers" - ie, the UK Government.
With both London and Edinburgh evading the issue, the poor cops in Dumfries have been ordered to reopen the worst case of terrorist murder in British history 21 years after the event.
This police investigation looks like a smokescreen behind which politicians in both capitals can retire. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the bombing, suspects as much. "If it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected, then I would be livid," he says. Prepare to get cross, Jim.
[The above is the text of an article by Paul Routledge in today's edition of the Daily Mirror. Hits the nail on the head, I think.]
Thursday, 29 October 2009
Lockerbie: US will not divorce UK
[This is the headline over a report on the BBC News website. It reads in part:]
The US Ambassador to the UK has stressed that good relations with Scotland will survive the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
But during his first official visit to Scotland Louis Susman also highlighted America's disappointment.
Mr Susman said the relationship with the UK was like a marriage but also strong enough to thrive. (...)
The ambassador is known to be a close confidant of the President and said America had fully expected the Lockerbie bomber to remain in prison in Scotland.
He told BBC Scotland that America might have sought to have al Megrahi extradited at an early stage, if they had thought that the Libyan would end up being released.
He said: "We never anticipated his release, I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
He continued: "Good friends disagree, I compare it sometimes to a marriage, you have a little fight, you are a little mad but you don't get divorced."
[ "... I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah. But there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possibility that extradition would be effected voluntarily. That, indeed, was the very reason why the neutral venue scheme was thought up and recommended by the US and the UK jointly to the United Nations Security Council, which then adopted it unanimously.
If the ambassador is talking about the period after Mr Megrahi's conviction at Zeist, his comment is arrant nonsense. The United States Government was well aware that repatriation was a real possibility: indeed, two US Cabinet officers - the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of State - made representations to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary while he was pondering his decision. If, at that stage, (or any other stage while Mr Megrahi was in Scottish custody as a convicted prisoner) the United States had requested his extradition, the Scottish courts would have rejected the application as totally lacking in legal justification.]
The US Ambassador to the UK has stressed that good relations with Scotland will survive the row over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
But during his first official visit to Scotland Louis Susman also highlighted America's disappointment.
Mr Susman said the relationship with the UK was like a marriage but also strong enough to thrive. (...)
The ambassador is known to be a close confidant of the President and said America had fully expected the Lockerbie bomber to remain in prison in Scotland.
He told BBC Scotland that America might have sought to have al Megrahi extradited at an early stage, if they had thought that the Libyan would end up being released.
He said: "We never anticipated his release, I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
He continued: "Good friends disagree, I compare it sometimes to a marriage, you have a little fight, you are a little mad but you don't get divorced."
[ "... I think if we ever thought he would be released we probably would have asked for extradition early on."
If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah. But there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possibility that extradition would be effected voluntarily. That, indeed, was the very reason why the neutral venue scheme was thought up and recommended by the US and the UK jointly to the United Nations Security Council, which then adopted it unanimously.
If the ambassador is talking about the period after Mr Megrahi's conviction at Zeist, his comment is arrant nonsense. The United States Government was well aware that repatriation was a real possibility: indeed, two US Cabinet officers - the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of State - made representations to the Scottish Cabinet Secretary while he was pondering his decision. If, at that stage, (or any other stage while Mr Megrahi was in Scottish custody as a convicted prisoner) the United States had requested his extradition, the Scottish courts would have rejected the application as totally lacking in legal justification.]
Police boss dismisses Lockerbie case claims
[This is the headline over a report in the Dumfries & Galloway Standard, one of the local newspapers circulating in Lockerbie. It reads in part:]
The region’s top cop has rubbished claims that a new investigation into the Lockerbie bombing will take place.
Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that there will only be a review of the evidence to see if any further lines of inquiry can be explored.
He stressed it was not a re-launch of the police investigation.
National newspaper reports at the weekend suggested that a fresh investigation would concentrate on identifying the accomplices of convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
However, Chief Constable Shearer said: “The case remains open and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary continues to work closely with the Crown Office. (...)
“Reports of the police investigation being re-launched are inaccurate.
“The work that is being undertaken is the latest in a series of reviews which have formed part of an investigative strategy in keeping with our determination to pursue every possible lead.
“We also take cognisance of the trial court’s acceptance of the Crown’s position that Mr al-Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan Intelligence Service and did not act alone.
“It has been reported that new lines of inquiry are being pursued by my officers.
“I am concerned that the work that is being carried out in conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service could be misunderstood.
“As is the case in all major police investigations that remain open, good practice dictates that the evidence is reviewed at regular intervals.
“Recent events in the case simply bring about an appropriate time to take stock of all of the evidence gathered to establish if any new investigative opportunities exist.
“It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the review in any further detail but I would like to emphasise this is not a re-launch of the police investigation.”
Local man John Gair has welcomed the review because he believes there was a lot of other people involved in the bombing.
“Other people were named at the time but Gaddafi wouldn’t release them. The one thing a review won’t sort out is whether Megrahi was involved. (...)
“I’ve spoken to various senior policemen involved with the case over the years who are convinced they got the right man; but there are others like Dr Jim Swire who believe Megrahi is innocent.
“There is a complete range of opinions from people in the town, but I would love to know what the answer is.”
[So now we have it from the horse's mouth: the minds of the police and the Crown Office are utterly closed, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
The region’s top cop has rubbished claims that a new investigation into the Lockerbie bombing will take place.
Chief Constable Patrick Shearer said that there will only be a review of the evidence to see if any further lines of inquiry can be explored.
He stressed it was not a re-launch of the police investigation.
National newspaper reports at the weekend suggested that a fresh investigation would concentrate on identifying the accomplices of convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.
However, Chief Constable Shearer said: “The case remains open and Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary continues to work closely with the Crown Office. (...)
“Reports of the police investigation being re-launched are inaccurate.
“The work that is being undertaken is the latest in a series of reviews which have formed part of an investigative strategy in keeping with our determination to pursue every possible lead.
“We also take cognisance of the trial court’s acceptance of the Crown’s position that Mr al-Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan Intelligence Service and did not act alone.
“It has been reported that new lines of inquiry are being pursued by my officers.
“I am concerned that the work that is being carried out in conjunction with the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service could be misunderstood.
“As is the case in all major police investigations that remain open, good practice dictates that the evidence is reviewed at regular intervals.
“Recent events in the case simply bring about an appropriate time to take stock of all of the evidence gathered to establish if any new investigative opportunities exist.
“It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the review in any further detail but I would like to emphasise this is not a re-launch of the police investigation.”
Local man John Gair has welcomed the review because he believes there was a lot of other people involved in the bombing.
“Other people were named at the time but Gaddafi wouldn’t release them. The one thing a review won’t sort out is whether Megrahi was involved. (...)
“I’ve spoken to various senior policemen involved with the case over the years who are convinced they got the right man; but there are others like Dr Jim Swire who believe Megrahi is innocent.
“There is a complete range of opinions from people in the town, but I would love to know what the answer is.”
[So now we have it from the horse's mouth: the minds of the police and the Crown Office are utterly closed, notwithstanding the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.]
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Lockerbie and the Prime Minister
The BBC News website's report on today's Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons contains the following:
"1223 Tory Daniel Kawcznyski asks about a Lockerbie bombing inquiry. Mr Brown says it is up to the Scottish authorities to pursue any new leads."
The account of the exchange on The Scotsman's website can be read here.
What follows is correspondence between Dr Jim Swire and the Prime Minister.
Letter from Dr Swire
24th August 2009
Dear Prime Minister,
LOCKERBIE
I regret that I have not written to you previously about the Lockerbie disaster. Now I must approach you against the rather dire current events in Scotland.
I had the privilege of meeting Kenny MacAskill during discussions over what he should do. I admire him as a man of integrity who decided on the basis of what he believed was right, within the precepts of Scots law. I note that the Church of Scotland supported Megrahi's repatriation.
He knew he would draw the attention of the lynch mobs.
I believe that by taking an honourable course in conformity with established Scottish law practice (the 3 months to live precedent), he has gained for Scotland an opportunity to shed some of the opprobrium which will descend on her over the way the Lockerbie case has been handled, when the verdict is finally quashed.
What may not have been anticipated is the venom of the onslaught from the USA. The odious Libyan rejoicing must surely have been expected. For the public in both England and Scotland the arrogance with which the USA speaks is deeply resented.
In responding to the letter to MacAskill from Mueller of the FBI (writing from the Department of Justice) I have pointed out one way in which the much vaunted investigation was profoundly deficient. I refer to the break-in at Heathrow which remained concealed for 12 years until after the Megrahi verdict had been reached. This break-in must have been known to Lady Thatcher, since the Met. investigated it, yet the Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew about it. That claim demands further corroboration.
Frankly had that aspect of the case been known to the Zeist court, the trial would have been stopped, or never started in the first place. Unlike Heathrow, where all was documented, there was no evidence led of a security breach at the Malta airport.
This concealment does not implicate the USA, except in as much as one would expect their investigators also to have been aware of it, nor your party. Nor does it promote the purposes of the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed there are strong suggestions that the investigating Scottish police may have known of it and suppressed it. Exposing it would exonerate Libya (and Malta) and so certainly would strengthen the UK's position in Libya's mind and through the Arab world.
It implicates the Downing Street of the day (Lady Thatcher) who compounded her apparent knowledge of what really happened by her claims in 'the Downing Street years' published 2 years after the indictments were issued, where she claims that her support for the Reagan bombing of Tripoli/Bengazi left Gaddafi unable to mount serious terrorist outrages thereafter (Page 449).. Its exposure will be strongly opposed by those civil servants and intelligence people who know it to be true.
In urging you to promote a full inquiry, including the question of suppression of the Heathrow evidence, I hope that the proposal will be seen not as some sort of temptation by the devil, but a way whereby the truth may be approached, MacAskill's decision would be justified, the US forced to climb down, and perhaps most importantly of all, the UK, and Scotland in particular emerge with some credit after all.
With best wishes to you and your family,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Reply from the Prime Minister
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A2AA
23 October 2009
Dear Dr Swire
Thank you for your letter of 24 August.
First of all, I know that nothing I can say will assuage the loss that you and the other family members of the Lockerbie victims will still feel, but I assure you that you have my full sympathy in your loss.
You refer to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. As you say, that was a decision to be taken in the Scottish legal system, and I and my colleages were careful to respect the fact that this was Mr MacAskill’s responsibility. Like you however I deplore the unseemly way in which Mr Megrahi was received in Tripoli and I have made this clear publicly.
You seek a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case, to cover in particular certain evidence which you say was concealed from the investigation. I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pa Am flight 103. As you will recognise, that investigation and the subsequent prosecution was the responsibility of the Scottish Police and prosecutors. The evidence that was gathered was tested in court at the original trial in 2001 and on appeal in 2003. I understand that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow to which you refer made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not.
These are matters which the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland considered and upheld. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.
I recognise that this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope you understand why for the reasons I have set out. My thoughts, and those of the Government remain with you and the other families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
Yours sincerely
(signed) Gordon Brown
[It will be noted that the Prime Minister's reply is dated the same day as UK Families-Flight 103 handed in to 10 Downing Street the group's own letter requesting the institution of a full independent inquiry.]
"1223 Tory Daniel Kawcznyski asks about a Lockerbie bombing inquiry. Mr Brown says it is up to the Scottish authorities to pursue any new leads."
The account of the exchange on The Scotsman's website can be read here.
What follows is correspondence between Dr Jim Swire and the Prime Minister.
Letter from Dr Swire
24th August 2009
Dear Prime Minister,
LOCKERBIE
I regret that I have not written to you previously about the Lockerbie disaster. Now I must approach you against the rather dire current events in Scotland.
I had the privilege of meeting Kenny MacAskill during discussions over what he should do. I admire him as a man of integrity who decided on the basis of what he believed was right, within the precepts of Scots law. I note that the Church of Scotland supported Megrahi's repatriation.
He knew he would draw the attention of the lynch mobs.
I believe that by taking an honourable course in conformity with established Scottish law practice (the 3 months to live precedent), he has gained for Scotland an opportunity to shed some of the opprobrium which will descend on her over the way the Lockerbie case has been handled, when the verdict is finally quashed.
What may not have been anticipated is the venom of the onslaught from the USA. The odious Libyan rejoicing must surely have been expected. For the public in both England and Scotland the arrogance with which the USA speaks is deeply resented.
In responding to the letter to MacAskill from Mueller of the FBI (writing from the Department of Justice) I have pointed out one way in which the much vaunted investigation was profoundly deficient. I refer to the break-in at Heathrow which remained concealed for 12 years until after the Megrahi verdict had been reached. This break-in must have been known to Lady Thatcher, since the Met. investigated it, yet the Crown Office has denied to me in writing that they knew about it. That claim demands further corroboration.
Frankly had that aspect of the case been known to the Zeist court, the trial would have been stopped, or never started in the first place. Unlike Heathrow, where all was documented, there was no evidence led of a security breach at the Malta airport.
This concealment does not implicate the USA, except in as much as one would expect their investigators also to have been aware of it, nor your party. Nor does it promote the purposes of the Scottish Nationalists. Indeed there are strong suggestions that the investigating Scottish police may have known of it and suppressed it. Exposing it would exonerate Libya (and Malta) and so certainly would strengthen the UK's position in Libya's mind and through the Arab world.
It implicates the Downing Street of the day (Lady Thatcher) who compounded her apparent knowledge of what really happened by her claims in 'the Downing Street years' published 2 years after the indictments were issued, where she claims that her support for the Reagan bombing of Tripoli/Bengazi left Gaddafi unable to mount serious terrorist outrages thereafter (Page 449).. Its exposure will be strongly opposed by those civil servants and intelligence people who know it to be true.
In urging you to promote a full inquiry, including the question of suppression of the Heathrow evidence, I hope that the proposal will be seen not as some sort of temptation by the devil, but a way whereby the truth may be approached, MacAskill's decision would be justified, the US forced to climb down, and perhaps most importantly of all, the UK, and Scotland in particular emerge with some credit after all.
With best wishes to you and your family,
(signed) Dr Jim Swire
Reply from the Prime Minister
10 DOWNING STREET
LONDON SW1A2AA
23 October 2009
Dear Dr Swire
Thank you for your letter of 24 August.
First of all, I know that nothing I can say will assuage the loss that you and the other family members of the Lockerbie victims will still feel, but I assure you that you have my full sympathy in your loss.
You refer to Mr MacAskill’s decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds. As you say, that was a decision to be taken in the Scottish legal system, and I and my colleages were careful to respect the fact that this was Mr MacAskill’s responsibility. Like you however I deplore the unseemly way in which Mr Megrahi was received in Tripoli and I have made this clear publicly.
You seek a public inquiry into the Lockerbie case, to cover in particular certain evidence which you say was concealed from the investigation. I understand your desire to understand the events surrounding the bombing of Pa Am flight 103. As you will recognise, that investigation and the subsequent prosecution was the responsibility of the Scottish Police and prosecutors. The evidence that was gathered was tested in court at the original trial in 2001 and on appeal in 2003. I understand that the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland did consider whether the incident at Heathrow to which you refer made the conviction of Mr Megrahi unsafe, and concluded that it did not.
These are matters which the separate legal jurisdiction in Scotland considered and upheld. I do not think that it would be appropriate for the UK government to open an inquiry of this sort.
I recognise that this is not the answer you were looking for, but I hope you understand why for the reasons I have set out. My thoughts, and those of the Government remain with you and the other families of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing.
Yours sincerely
(signed) Gordon Brown
[It will be noted that the Prime Minister's reply is dated the same day as UK Families-Flight 103 handed in to 10 Downing Street the group's own letter requesting the institution of a full independent inquiry.]
Reverend John Mosey to speak at Life After Lockerbie event
A minister who lost his 19-year-old daughter in the Lockerbie bombing is to speak in York about the positives he took out of her death.
The Reverend John Mosey, whose daughter, Helga, was on the Pan Am jumbo jet that was blown up over the Scottish town on December 21, 1988, will also take questions from members of the public during the Life After Lockerbie event at Foxwood Community Centre.
Mr Mosey, 69, told The Press he was devastated by his daughter’s death and it was an “incredibly difficult” time.
“It’s hard to explain in just a few words,” he said. “We have found amazing strength in our faith and that’s really what’s brought us through. We’ve seen great things come out of it.”
About two years ago, Mr Mosey telephoned convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to tell him he did not believe he was guilty of the atrocity. Mr Mosey told al-Megrahi that only he and God could know for sure. (...)
In about 1992, he set up a home for abused and abandoned children in a rural area of the Philippines. “We have 286 there, a day school and a nursery school,” he said. “I also have a children’s home in India where we have 32 girls who are destitute. Most of them are just girls off the street who have had no education and no healthcare, but they have a good home now and they do very well.” Mr Mosey, who lives near Kendal, in Cumbria, was invited to the city by Steve Redman, the pastor of the Ark Church, which meets at Foxwood Community Centre, in Bellhouse Way [York]. (...)
The event is happening on Sunday, November 8, at 7pm.
[From an article in The Press, a newspaper circulating in York.]
The Reverend John Mosey, whose daughter, Helga, was on the Pan Am jumbo jet that was blown up over the Scottish town on December 21, 1988, will also take questions from members of the public during the Life After Lockerbie event at Foxwood Community Centre.
Mr Mosey, 69, told The Press he was devastated by his daughter’s death and it was an “incredibly difficult” time.
“It’s hard to explain in just a few words,” he said. “We have found amazing strength in our faith and that’s really what’s brought us through. We’ve seen great things come out of it.”
About two years ago, Mr Mosey telephoned convicted bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to tell him he did not believe he was guilty of the atrocity. Mr Mosey told al-Megrahi that only he and God could know for sure. (...)
In about 1992, he set up a home for abused and abandoned children in a rural area of the Philippines. “We have 286 there, a day school and a nursery school,” he said. “I also have a children’s home in India where we have 32 girls who are destitute. Most of them are just girls off the street who have had no education and no healthcare, but they have a good home now and they do very well.” Mr Mosey, who lives near Kendal, in Cumbria, was invited to the city by Steve Redman, the pastor of the Ark Church, which meets at Foxwood Community Centre, in Bellhouse Way [York]. (...)
The event is happening on Sunday, November 8, at 7pm.
[From an article in The Press, a newspaper circulating in York.]
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Scottish investigators review case of 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
[This is the headline over a report by Jennifer Glasse on the website of the radio station Voice of America. The report (which can be listened to on the same website) reads in part:]
Scottish police have just announced they are looking into evidence surrounding the 1988 bombing of an American airliner flying from London to New York. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Some victims' families had been trying to convince British authorities to reopen the case, after the only person convicted of involvement, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi dropped his appeal just before he was released by Scottish authorities because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix's brother Peter was one of the victims of Lockerbie. She has mixed feelings about Scottish authorities reviewing the criminal investigation. "I do have a concern that the criminal investigation may get in the way of a decision to hold a full public inquiry," she said.
Dix and some other family members say British officials have in the past used the Scottish criminal investigation as an excuse to not hold a public inquiry which they see as their best chance to find out how Lockerbie was allowed to happen and who was responsible. Prosecutors have always said that al-Megrahi wasn't acting alone. (...)
"...it is my professional opinion that on the evidence led at the trial Abdel Baset Megrahi was wrongly convicted. It's a question of law. It's not a question of opinion or of counting heads. It's a simple question of law," said Robert Black, a professor of Scots law (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission backs him up. In 2007 it issued a ruling giving six reasons why there is reason to believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Al-Megrahi had been planning an appeal, but he dropped it just before he was released, opening the door for a possible public inquiry. Black says both the legal and political establishment in Scotland don't want an inquiry because they're afraid of what it will turn up. (...)
Many American victims' families disagree. They were outraged at al-Megrahi's release, and consider the case closed. But the Reverend John Mosey, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed in the bombing, has his own idea who might be guilty. "Having attended the whole trial except maybe one and a half weeks in Poland, ten months, I came away feeling that, still feeling that, the Palestinian group- the PFLPGC and Ahmed Gabril, protected by the Syrians and financed by Iran, were guilty, but we can't prove that at this point," he said.
Dr. Jim Swire is the father of a woman killed in the bombing. He thinks the bomb was planted at London's Heathrow airport, not in Malta as prosecutors alleged. He points to a break-in in Heathrow's baggage area hours before Pan Am flight 103 left London. "When you add that to the fact that the plane that took off, and was blown up, took off and was loaded completely at the Heathrow Airport. And quite apart from the fact that I myself took a copy of the Lockerbie bomb on board a British Airways plane at that same airport in 1989 and wasn't stopped from doing so and flew to America with it. It seemed to us very obvious that there were major, major flaws in security at that airport," he said.
The news that Scottish authorities are pursuing possible new evidence in the case came as UK families of Lockerbie victims delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking for the public inquiry every former British government has denied them. Britain's foreign minister said this week if there is any question of an inquiry, it will be up to Scotland to address it.
[Time magazine's coverage of these recent "developments" can be read here. It is of interest principally because, unlike every other report I have seen, it points out that the email to relatives from Crown Official Lesley Miller announcing the police review of the case dates from [3rd] September 2009. How did it come about that the press publicised it only on 25 October, the very day that UK Families-Flight 103's call to the Prime Minister to set up a full independent inquiry was published? Further evidence, if any were needed, of a spoiling operation?]
Scottish police have just announced they are looking into evidence surrounding the 1988 bombing of an American airliner flying from London to New York. It exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people. Some victims' families had been trying to convince British authorities to reopen the case, after the only person convicted of involvement, Libyan Abdel Baset al-Megrahi dropped his appeal just before he was released by Scottish authorities because he is suffering from terminal cancer. (...)
Pamela Dix's brother Peter was one of the victims of Lockerbie. She has mixed feelings about Scottish authorities reviewing the criminal investigation. "I do have a concern that the criminal investigation may get in the way of a decision to hold a full public inquiry," she said.
Dix and some other family members say British officials have in the past used the Scottish criminal investigation as an excuse to not hold a public inquiry which they see as their best chance to find out how Lockerbie was allowed to happen and who was responsible. Prosecutors have always said that al-Megrahi wasn't acting alone. (...)
"...it is my professional opinion that on the evidence led at the trial Abdel Baset Megrahi was wrongly convicted. It's a question of law. It's not a question of opinion or of counting heads. It's a simple question of law," said Robert Black, a professor of Scots law (...)
The Scottish Criminal Cases review commission backs him up. In 2007 it issued a ruling giving six reasons why there is reason to believe that al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted. Al-Megrahi had been planning an appeal, but he dropped it just before he was released, opening the door for a possible public inquiry. Black says both the legal and political establishment in Scotland don't want an inquiry because they're afraid of what it will turn up. (...)
Many American victims' families disagree. They were outraged at al-Megrahi's release, and consider the case closed. But the Reverend John Mosey, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed in the bombing, has his own idea who might be guilty. "Having attended the whole trial except maybe one and a half weeks in Poland, ten months, I came away feeling that, still feeling that, the Palestinian group- the PFLPGC and Ahmed Gabril, protected by the Syrians and financed by Iran, were guilty, but we can't prove that at this point," he said.
Dr. Jim Swire is the father of a woman killed in the bombing. He thinks the bomb was planted at London's Heathrow airport, not in Malta as prosecutors alleged. He points to a break-in in Heathrow's baggage area hours before Pan Am flight 103 left London. "When you add that to the fact that the plane that took off, and was blown up, took off and was loaded completely at the Heathrow Airport. And quite apart from the fact that I myself took a copy of the Lockerbie bomb on board a British Airways plane at that same airport in 1989 and wasn't stopped from doing so and flew to America with it. It seemed to us very obvious that there were major, major flaws in security at that airport," he said.
The news that Scottish authorities are pursuing possible new evidence in the case came as UK families of Lockerbie victims delivered a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown asking for the public inquiry every former British government has denied them. Britain's foreign minister said this week if there is any question of an inquiry, it will be up to Scotland to address it.
[Time magazine's coverage of these recent "developments" can be read here. It is of interest principally because, unlike every other report I have seen, it points out that the email to relatives from Crown Official Lesley Miller announcing the police review of the case dates from [3rd] September 2009. How did it come about that the press publicised it only on 25 October, the very day that UK Families-Flight 103's call to the Prime Minister to set up a full independent inquiry was published? Further evidence, if any were needed, of a spoiling operation?]
Police challenged over Lockerbie DNA “smokescreen”
[What follows is the text of a press release issued by Scottish National Party MSP, Christine Grahame.]
Claims that fresh DNA techniques could open up new leads in the Lockerbie case have been dismissed as a smokescreen by SNP MSP Christine Grahame. Ms Grahame has called on Detective Chief [Inspector] Michael Dalgleish who is heading the current review of evidence related to the Lockerbie bombing to explain why materials which it was claimed were packed along with the bomb were only checked for DNA in 2006.
Ms Grahame has also called on the police to confirm that a report dated 18th October 2006 by the Forensic Science Service commissioned on behalf of the Crown Office did find a DNA profile in the remains of an umbrella which the prosecution claimed was one of the items Megrahi had bought in Malta, but that it did not match his DNA. Ms Grahame said:
“It is difficult to believe that all of the actions and reactions of the Crown Office are purely coincidental so I remain hugely sceptical about the timing of this review of evidence. I am particularly concerned at the spin being placed on it by the Crown Office and the police that new forensic techniques will potentially yield a range of new suspects.
“A report written by John Robert Lowe of the Forensic Science Service in October 2006 and which I understand [DCI] Dalgleish has read, was able to establish that a crucial piece of evidence, the remains of an umbrella packed into the case carrying the bomb had a DNA profile still on it.
“I further understand that this was the first time any DNA testing had been undertaken on the bomb case contents despite the technique being available to investigators at the time. That report determined the DNA extracted from the inside of the umbrella did not belong to Mr Megrahi.
“The Crown Office claim Mr Megrahi bought this umbrella, as new, along with other items of clothing before packing these into a case containing the bomb.
“To dispel any suggestion that this review of evidence is little more than a smokescreen and a stalling tactic the Police and the Crown Office should clarify why key evidence was not DNA tested until 2006 and specifically what “fresh” forensic areas they are considering.”
Ms Grahame also said she had seen documents which show that Tony Gauci the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed Megrahi had bought the items said to have been packed with the bomb, was actively seeking payment for his evidence ahead of the trial. It recently emerged that Gauci had reportedly received over $2million from the US Government. Ms Grahame added:
“I have seen additional documents that were to be part of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal that show Tony Gauci, the Crown’s key witness, was actively looking for financial payment in return for his evidence. Both Scottish investigators and the FBI were made aware of this at the time of the investigation.
“An initial figure of $10,000 is mentioned in the documents but make it plain that potentially an “unlimited amount” could be made available in future. During the Maltese phase of the investigation a US satellite was monitoring telephone conversations made by Tony Gauci and documents I have seen show concerns being raised by the FBI to Scottish police investigators about Gauci’s welfare giving his emerging role as a key prosecution witness. The documents state that Gauci was wanting $10,000 “immediately”. At the trial Scottish police investigators and the Crown were aware of this financial interest by Gauci but did not inform Mr Megrahi’s Defence team.”
The offer of financial inducement breaches the specific instructions given by the then Lord Advocate Lord Fraser, at the time of the investigation that no financial inducement “of any kind” was to be made to any potential witness ahead of the trial.
”It casts a further dark shadow over the safety of the conviction and leaves the police and the Crown Office with many questions still to answer,” Ms Grahame added.
Note to editors
John Robert Lowe is a forensic scientist with the Forensic Science Service and has been regular used by the Crown Office as an expert witness.
[The Sun has a report on this issue by Myra Philp. It can be read here.]
Claims that fresh DNA techniques could open up new leads in the Lockerbie case have been dismissed as a smokescreen by SNP MSP Christine Grahame. Ms Grahame has called on Detective Chief [Inspector] Michael Dalgleish who is heading the current review of evidence related to the Lockerbie bombing to explain why materials which it was claimed were packed along with the bomb were only checked for DNA in 2006.
Ms Grahame has also called on the police to confirm that a report dated 18th October 2006 by the Forensic Science Service commissioned on behalf of the Crown Office did find a DNA profile in the remains of an umbrella which the prosecution claimed was one of the items Megrahi had bought in Malta, but that it did not match his DNA. Ms Grahame said:
“It is difficult to believe that all of the actions and reactions of the Crown Office are purely coincidental so I remain hugely sceptical about the timing of this review of evidence. I am particularly concerned at the spin being placed on it by the Crown Office and the police that new forensic techniques will potentially yield a range of new suspects.
“A report written by John Robert Lowe of the Forensic Science Service in October 2006 and which I understand [DCI] Dalgleish has read, was able to establish that a crucial piece of evidence, the remains of an umbrella packed into the case carrying the bomb had a DNA profile still on it.
“I further understand that this was the first time any DNA testing had been undertaken on the bomb case contents despite the technique being available to investigators at the time. That report determined the DNA extracted from the inside of the umbrella did not belong to Mr Megrahi.
“The Crown Office claim Mr Megrahi bought this umbrella, as new, along with other items of clothing before packing these into a case containing the bomb.
“To dispel any suggestion that this review of evidence is little more than a smokescreen and a stalling tactic the Police and the Crown Office should clarify why key evidence was not DNA tested until 2006 and specifically what “fresh” forensic areas they are considering.”
Ms Grahame also said she had seen documents which show that Tony Gauci the Maltese shopkeeper who claimed Megrahi had bought the items said to have been packed with the bomb, was actively seeking payment for his evidence ahead of the trial. It recently emerged that Gauci had reportedly received over $2million from the US Government. Ms Grahame added:
“I have seen additional documents that were to be part of Mr Megrahi’s second appeal that show Tony Gauci, the Crown’s key witness, was actively looking for financial payment in return for his evidence. Both Scottish investigators and the FBI were made aware of this at the time of the investigation.
“An initial figure of $10,000 is mentioned in the documents but make it plain that potentially an “unlimited amount” could be made available in future. During the Maltese phase of the investigation a US satellite was monitoring telephone conversations made by Tony Gauci and documents I have seen show concerns being raised by the FBI to Scottish police investigators about Gauci’s welfare giving his emerging role as a key prosecution witness. The documents state that Gauci was wanting $10,000 “immediately”. At the trial Scottish police investigators and the Crown were aware of this financial interest by Gauci but did not inform Mr Megrahi’s Defence team.”
The offer of financial inducement breaches the specific instructions given by the then Lord Advocate Lord Fraser, at the time of the investigation that no financial inducement “of any kind” was to be made to any potential witness ahead of the trial.
”It casts a further dark shadow over the safety of the conviction and leaves the police and the Crown Office with many questions still to answer,” Ms Grahame added.
Note to editors
John Robert Lowe is a forensic scientist with the Forensic Science Service and has been regular used by the Crown Office as an expert witness.
[The Sun has a report on this issue by Myra Philp. It can be read here.]
Monday, 26 October 2009
We still need a Lockerbie inquiry
[This is the heading over an article on The Guardian's website by Pamela Dix, whose brother was one of those killed in the Lockerbie disaster. It reads as follows:]
For 20 years, UK Families Flight 103 has been campaigning for a full independent inquiry into the events leading up to and after the Lockerbie plane bombing. In the request for an inquiry, the families group has clearly identified the areas of concern and the questions that need to be answered. This request is separate from the need for an independent, criminal investigation to bring to justice those responsible.
The fact that so far the outcome of the criminal investigation has not been conclusive is disappointing. Widespread concern around the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has raised a number of issues. There are also issues about the division of responsibility between Westminster and Holyrood and whether it was right to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But everyone is in agreement that whether or not he is guilty, others must have been involved. We hope that the fact that the criminal investigation is to continue will contribute to our quest for the truth.
The circumstances of the trial, the appeal and the Scottish judicial process have prompted calls for a separate inquiry. There is an argument that any such investigation is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament, with the powers to call upon the UK government, and its officers, to explain its position.
However, this is quite separate from the families' continuing call for an independent, wider inquiry. Some of the issues that we wish to see included in such an inquiry relate to national security, foreign policy and transport safety – all responsibilities that since devolution remain within the remit of the UK government. It is galling to listen to David Miliband's off the cuff response to our request for an inquiry: that the biggest mass murder in the UK had nothing to do with his government. If this were the case, why did Robin Cook, Jack Straw and Tony Blair have ongoing discussions with us about a possible public inquiry, both before and after devolution? At no stage was it suggested that this was a matter for the devolved Scottish parliament.
Underpinning our request for this inquiry is our belief that unless we understand and acknowledge the complicated series of events that led to the decision to put a bomb on Flight 103, no lessons will be learned. The fact that Straw told us personally that he would have instigated an inquiry at the time if he had been in a position to do so does not lessen our frustration in failing to get ministers to accept what must be done.
Governments need to understand the tenacity of relatives involved in such tragedies. There have been numerous occasions when we could have caved in under the lack of interest, political pragmatism or sheer ignorance of those in authority. Yet nearly 21 years after the explosion that killed 270 dearly loved people, we have not lost heart that finally – surely – the fourth prime minister to hold that office since the disaster will do the right thing. This is why relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 stood at the gates of Downing Street to hand over a letter requesting the prime minister, Gordon Brown, to instigate a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the destruction of the aircraft.
For 20 years, UK Families Flight 103 has been campaigning for a full independent inquiry into the events leading up to and after the Lockerbie plane bombing. In the request for an inquiry, the families group has clearly identified the areas of concern and the questions that need to be answered. This request is separate from the need for an independent, criminal investigation to bring to justice those responsible.
The fact that so far the outcome of the criminal investigation has not been conclusive is disappointing. Widespread concern around the safety of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has raised a number of issues. There are also issues about the division of responsibility between Westminster and Holyrood and whether it was right to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds. But everyone is in agreement that whether or not he is guilty, others must have been involved. We hope that the fact that the criminal investigation is to continue will contribute to our quest for the truth.
The circumstances of the trial, the appeal and the Scottish judicial process have prompted calls for a separate inquiry. There is an argument that any such investigation is the responsibility of the Scottish parliament, with the powers to call upon the UK government, and its officers, to explain its position.
However, this is quite separate from the families' continuing call for an independent, wider inquiry. Some of the issues that we wish to see included in such an inquiry relate to national security, foreign policy and transport safety – all responsibilities that since devolution remain within the remit of the UK government. It is galling to listen to David Miliband's off the cuff response to our request for an inquiry: that the biggest mass murder in the UK had nothing to do with his government. If this were the case, why did Robin Cook, Jack Straw and Tony Blair have ongoing discussions with us about a possible public inquiry, both before and after devolution? At no stage was it suggested that this was a matter for the devolved Scottish parliament.
Underpinning our request for this inquiry is our belief that unless we understand and acknowledge the complicated series of events that led to the decision to put a bomb on Flight 103, no lessons will be learned. The fact that Straw told us personally that he would have instigated an inquiry at the time if he had been in a position to do so does not lessen our frustration in failing to get ministers to accept what must be done.
Governments need to understand the tenacity of relatives involved in such tragedies. There have been numerous occasions when we could have caved in under the lack of interest, political pragmatism or sheer ignorance of those in authority. Yet nearly 21 years after the explosion that killed 270 dearly loved people, we have not lost heart that finally – surely – the fourth prime minister to hold that office since the disaster will do the right thing. This is why relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 stood at the gates of Downing Street to hand over a letter requesting the prime minister, Gordon Brown, to instigate a full public inquiry into the circumstances of the destruction of the aircraft.
Lockerbie: was Anthony Gauci's memory reliable?
[This is the headline over an article in today's edition of The Times by Professor David Canter, Director of the International Research Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Huddersfield, President of the International Academy of Investigative Psychology and author of Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action. It reads as follows:]
The problem with the key evidence in the Lockerbie case is that it ignored discoveries made by psychologists more than 100 years ago. When the Scottish police resume their inquiries into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, they will be reminded that the evidence that condemned Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was probably based on a vague memory that somehow became convincing enough for the court to convict.
By dropping his appeal so that he could die at peace at home in Libya, al-Megrahi removed the opportunity of having the challenges to the evidence against him revealed in court for all to see. The furore over his release masked the debate about whether he really was the man who planted the bomb on Flight 103 and has drawn attention away from the significance of the eyewitness testimony provided by Anthony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper.
It was Mr Gauci’s claim that the man who bought clothes resembling those found in the suitcase with the bomb was indeed al-Megrahi, which was the foundation of the evidence against him. Yet many studies since those of the late 19th century of the psychology of memory have raised doubts about witness testimony. They raise important questions about the validity of what Gauci eventually claimed in court he thought he had remembered. This was the conclusion I came to when I was instructed by al-Megrahi’s solicitor to review Mr Gauci’s testimony. With the assistance of two colleagues, I produced a 102-page report that examined 96 statements surrounding Mr Gauci’s claim that al-Megrahi had bought the clothes in his shop before December 21, 1988.
There were a number of problems with Mr Gauci’s memories, not least in his identification in court, 13 years after the bomb exploded, that the man standing in the dock, al-Megrahi, had bought the clothes. Police had asked Mr Gauci more than ten times to pinpoint the person who came to his shop: at various times he identified various different people.
Many experts have pointed out how unreliable dock identifications are. They are a form of leading question which suggests that the person who has been brought to justice is very likely to be guilty.
On February 15, 1991, two and a half years after a man possibly had visited his shop, Mr Gauci was shown 12 photographs and asked if he recognised the purchaser. At that stage in the investigation the police were focusing on al-Megrahi as the likely culprit. They, therefore, had a lot invested in Mr Gauci choosing al-Megrahi from the photographs. There is a considerable psychological research to show that people can be influenced in their judgments by subtle cues from others around them. So it seems very likely that inadvertently Mr Gauci could have been influenced to choose the photograph the police wanted.
We tested this possibility by running an experiment with two interviewers. Both were told to ask a random selection of people which of the people in the 12 photographs the police had used was likely to be the Lockerbie bomber. They were told to be careful not to indicate who they thought the culprit might be. Interviewer A was told that picture 8 was the culprit and interviewer B was not told anything. Of the 20 people interviewed by B none selected picture 8. Of the 36 interviewed by A, 15 chose picture 8. This small study, with the actual material used by the police, accords with many other explorations of these issues and many cases in which confident eyewitness identification has later proven false.
The police and court seemed to hold an uninformed, naive view of how human memory works. The popular misconception is that memory is like an old-fashioned photographic plate that records what happens, but then slowly fades with time. There even seems to be the assumption that the plate can be dusted down and put in a bright light to reveal more clearly what was there all along.
This certainly was the basis of the claim that Mr Gauci’s memories of an alleged all-important shopping spree actually improved with time as he thought more carefully about the event. But all the evidence is that, unless the event is of great emotional significance and attended to very carefully at the time, it fades from our minds very quickly. So for a shopkeeper to claim he had a memory of what clothes were bought and by whom, when the purchases and purchaser were unremarkable, seems very unlikely, especially so long after the event.
Some of the most important statements by Mr Gauci were made on January 30, 1990, a good two years after the bomb went off. Over and over again it appears that Mr Gauci is keen to do everything he can to remember something that will be of assistance. This leads to a development of what he thinks he remembers when prompted by the police interviewer. We identified at least 20 crucial aspects of Mr Gauci’s memory of the purchase of the clothing that varied considerably over the years from one statement to the next. How the purchaser left the shop, whether he got into a taxi or not, all of these details are vague to begin with but become more precise under police questioning, even though the initial interview was at least ten months after the purchases were reputedly made and subsequent statements were two or more years later.
The evidence in court many years later still gives the impression of confident clear memories. But the earlier statements put these in different light. For instance, Mr Gauci initially claimed the man bought no shirts, but ten years later said in court that he had. In early statements he said that the purchase was well before Christmas as there were no Christmas lights in the shop, but by the time he came to give evidence in court the lights were clearly present.
Whole volumes have been written in recent years on how readily people can come to believe that they remembered things that never occurred but which were actually suggested to them in earlier interviews. There is no simple relationship between how confident a person is in what he thinks he remembers and how accurate that memory is. Yet this psychological truth was ignored by the court that convicted al-Megrahi.
The problem with the key evidence in the Lockerbie case is that it ignored discoveries made by psychologists more than 100 years ago. When the Scottish police resume their inquiries into the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, they will be reminded that the evidence that condemned Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi was probably based on a vague memory that somehow became convincing enough for the court to convict.
By dropping his appeal so that he could die at peace at home in Libya, al-Megrahi removed the opportunity of having the challenges to the evidence against him revealed in court for all to see. The furore over his release masked the debate about whether he really was the man who planted the bomb on Flight 103 and has drawn attention away from the significance of the eyewitness testimony provided by Anthony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper.
It was Mr Gauci’s claim that the man who bought clothes resembling those found in the suitcase with the bomb was indeed al-Megrahi, which was the foundation of the evidence against him. Yet many studies since those of the late 19th century of the psychology of memory have raised doubts about witness testimony. They raise important questions about the validity of what Gauci eventually claimed in court he thought he had remembered. This was the conclusion I came to when I was instructed by al-Megrahi’s solicitor to review Mr Gauci’s testimony. With the assistance of two colleagues, I produced a 102-page report that examined 96 statements surrounding Mr Gauci’s claim that al-Megrahi had bought the clothes in his shop before December 21, 1988.
There were a number of problems with Mr Gauci’s memories, not least in his identification in court, 13 years after the bomb exploded, that the man standing in the dock, al-Megrahi, had bought the clothes. Police had asked Mr Gauci more than ten times to pinpoint the person who came to his shop: at various times he identified various different people.
Many experts have pointed out how unreliable dock identifications are. They are a form of leading question which suggests that the person who has been brought to justice is very likely to be guilty.
On February 15, 1991, two and a half years after a man possibly had visited his shop, Mr Gauci was shown 12 photographs and asked if he recognised the purchaser. At that stage in the investigation the police were focusing on al-Megrahi as the likely culprit. They, therefore, had a lot invested in Mr Gauci choosing al-Megrahi from the photographs. There is a considerable psychological research to show that people can be influenced in their judgments by subtle cues from others around them. So it seems very likely that inadvertently Mr Gauci could have been influenced to choose the photograph the police wanted.
We tested this possibility by running an experiment with two interviewers. Both were told to ask a random selection of people which of the people in the 12 photographs the police had used was likely to be the Lockerbie bomber. They were told to be careful not to indicate who they thought the culprit might be. Interviewer A was told that picture 8 was the culprit and interviewer B was not told anything. Of the 20 people interviewed by B none selected picture 8. Of the 36 interviewed by A, 15 chose picture 8. This small study, with the actual material used by the police, accords with many other explorations of these issues and many cases in which confident eyewitness identification has later proven false.
The police and court seemed to hold an uninformed, naive view of how human memory works. The popular misconception is that memory is like an old-fashioned photographic plate that records what happens, but then slowly fades with time. There even seems to be the assumption that the plate can be dusted down and put in a bright light to reveal more clearly what was there all along.
This certainly was the basis of the claim that Mr Gauci’s memories of an alleged all-important shopping spree actually improved with time as he thought more carefully about the event. But all the evidence is that, unless the event is of great emotional significance and attended to very carefully at the time, it fades from our minds very quickly. So for a shopkeeper to claim he had a memory of what clothes were bought and by whom, when the purchases and purchaser were unremarkable, seems very unlikely, especially so long after the event.
Some of the most important statements by Mr Gauci were made on January 30, 1990, a good two years after the bomb went off. Over and over again it appears that Mr Gauci is keen to do everything he can to remember something that will be of assistance. This leads to a development of what he thinks he remembers when prompted by the police interviewer. We identified at least 20 crucial aspects of Mr Gauci’s memory of the purchase of the clothing that varied considerably over the years from one statement to the next. How the purchaser left the shop, whether he got into a taxi or not, all of these details are vague to begin with but become more precise under police questioning, even though the initial interview was at least ten months after the purchases were reputedly made and subsequent statements were two or more years later.
The evidence in court many years later still gives the impression of confident clear memories. But the earlier statements put these in different light. For instance, Mr Gauci initially claimed the man bought no shirts, but ten years later said in court that he had. In early statements he said that the purchase was well before Christmas as there were no Christmas lights in the shop, but by the time he came to give evidence in court the lights were clearly present.
Whole volumes have been written in recent years on how readily people can come to believe that they remembered things that never occurred but which were actually suggested to them in earlier interviews. There is no simple relationship between how confident a person is in what he thinks he remembers and how accurate that memory is. Yet this psychological truth was ignored by the court that convicted al-Megrahi.
"Eight other 'high level' suspects"
The Scotsman ("Lockerbie: eight other 'high-level' suspects") and The Herald ("Police hunt for eight 'high level' Lockerbie accomplices") and other newspapers refer to the re-invigorated police investigation as focussing particularly on eight high level suspects.
I wonder whether, just possibly, these eight suspects might be the eight persons mentioned as associates and superiors of Abdelbaset Megrahi in the (highly tendentious) Briefing Note on the Pan Am 103 disaster issued by the US State Department in April 1992? They are (in order of appearance in the document):
Sa'id Rashid
Izz Aldin Hinshiri
Badri Hasan
Rifi Ali al-Sharif
Abdallah Sanussi
Ibrahim al-Bishari
Nasir Ali Ashur
Ibrahim Nayili.
One further name is mentioned - Abdallah Mahmud Hijazi - of whom, however, the document states "we lack concrete evidence of direct linkage".
I wonder whether, just possibly, these eight suspects might be the eight persons mentioned as associates and superiors of Abdelbaset Megrahi in the (highly tendentious) Briefing Note on the Pan Am 103 disaster issued by the US State Department in April 1992? They are (in order of appearance in the document):
Sa'id Rashid
Izz Aldin Hinshiri
Badri Hasan
Rifi Ali al-Sharif
Abdallah Sanussi
Ibrahim al-Bishari
Nasir Ali Ashur
Ibrahim Nayili.
One further name is mentioned - Abdallah Mahmud Hijazi - of whom, however, the document states "we lack concrete evidence of direct linkage".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)