A Scottish Sunday afternoon

"I am a documentary film maker wrapping production on a feature length film of the Lockerbie disaster, which I have been shooting for the past three years.  The focus of the film is the humanistic effects that have taken place since the bombing, with three families in the United States being the primary subjects.  I have trailed them through the various anniversaries of the bombing, their children's birthdays, and was with them last year on this date when Megrahi was released, an event which was particularly devastating to them as most of the Americans believe he was guilty of the crime.  

"As the people I've interviewed for this film have been primarily American, aside from a handful of people from Lockerbie itself, the interviews I have shot so far are leaning heavily towards the side that Megrahi is guilty.  As an objective journalist and filmmaker, I feel I must include the voice of the opposition to counterbalance the views that have divided the people of the UK vs US. (...)

"I am writing to formally ask for an interview with you for this film.  With your expertise and your prominence with regards to the case/trial I feel you are an invaluable voice in this story. Please consider this opportunity, and feel free to ask me any questions about me and my film. (...)

"You can rest assured the film itself will be held to the highest journalistic standards."

This is what the documentary maker wrote. The resulting filmed interview took place yesterday.

For more than an hour, all was unexceptional, the questioning covering my upbringing in Lockerbie, my recollections of the event itself, how I became involved in attempting to bring about a trial and my views about the trial itself and the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. I covered at some length my concerns about the flimsiness of the evidence against him, concerns in many instances shared by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in its 2007 report on Megrahi's conviction.

But then the entire tone of the proceedings changed. How could I hold myself out in the media as an expert when I had advised the Libyan government in relation to the Lockerbie case? The fact that I had never hidden this and it was in the public domain from the time that I first went public (in late 1997) with my January-1994 scheme for a non-jury trial in the Netherlands cut no ice with the interviewer. And if not all media outlets gave prominence to my contacts with the Libyan government, this was my fault rather than that of the journalists and media editorial staff concerned. How could I justify seeking to undermine the verdict of the Zeist court? The detailed account that I had given, and now attempted to give again, of the crucial instances in which the judges' conclusions were simply contrary to the evidence were swept aside, as were the concerns expressed by the SCCRC. After about half an hour of this, I brought the interview to an end and left the hotel room in which it had been held. This was precisely what the interviewer had been seeking to achieve. With hand-held camera running, I was followed through the hotel corridors with the interviewer ranting, amongst other things, "Do you sleep at night?"

I wonder what will happen to the first hour's recorded material? It contains lots of interesting stuff. But I doubt if it will ever see the light of day. The documentary maker had decided that what his film needed was a villain, and I was cast in the role. It will no doubt go down well in the United States and in certain Crown Office and police circles. It may also, for a time, serve to deflect attention from the terrible miscarriage of justice suffered by Abdelbaset Megrahi. But the truth will ultimately prevail.

Magna est veritas et praevalebit.

Megrahi's new book to reveal vital evidence he says will clear his name

[This is the headline over a report by Marcello Mega on page 44 of today's Scottish edition of The Mail on Sunday. The story does not (as yet) appear on the newspaper's website. The following excerpts have accordingly been typed out by me.]

The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is to publish a book containing sensational new evidence he claims will clear his name.

When ... Megrahi was found guilty of planting the bomb aboard Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people, the most crucial evidence involved a tiny piece of electronic circuit board.

Prosecutors said it had been found 35 miles from the crash site and was part of a timing device used to detonate explosives hidden in a tape recorder in luggage on the plane.

Megrahi's book will make public the results of comprehensive tests carried out by an internationally acclaimed explosives expert which cast doubt on his conviction.

The experiments -- by Dr John Wyatt, the UN's European consultant on explosives -- suggest that the 4mm square fragment of circuit board could not possibly have survived the explosion. In conditions designed to replicate the 1988 bomb as closely as possible, Dr Wyatt carried out 20 controlled explosions.

Radio-cassette recorders containing Semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi's conviction were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the actual bomb.

The amount of Semtex used was 400g -- the amount estimated to have brought down Pan Am Flight 103.

When the Semtex in the experiments was detonated, all the circuit boards in the timing devices and the surrounding tape recorders were completely destroyed.

Last night, Dr Wyatt said his experiments proved beyond a doubt that the fragment of circuit board used to convict Megrahi could not have been part of a timing device. He claimed his research was absolutely conclusive: it simply could not have survived such close proximity to such a powerful explosion.

Dr Wyatt said: "Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400mg of Semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.

"The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. So where did the fragment come from?" (...)

In Dr Wyatt's tests, circuit boards were completely vaporised in all the explosions using 400g of Semtex. Circuit boards were also vaporised in tests using considerably less explosive.

Only when the amount of Semtex was reduced to 150g -- 37.5 per cent of the quantity used -- did any trace of the circuit board survive. Even then, the remains were so small they could only be viewed and identified with a microscope.

Megrahi's conviction rested on two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2 million for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the discovery of the fragment. (...)

The book will also cover forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosive residue.

The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that material judged the conviction unsafe.

It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, saying no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence.

Last night, Robert Black, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at Edinburgh University ... said: "I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because, interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, namely, that he should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court."

[I am grateful to Marcello Mega for sending me the full, unedited, text of his article in The Mail on Sunday. It reads as follows:]

Dramatic revelations to be made in a book co-authored by the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing will send shockwaves through the Scottish justice system.
 
The book will outline in detail explosives tests carried out by an independent expert proving that a 4mm sq fragment of circuit board that was at the very heart of the Libyan’s conviction could not have survived the Lockerbie bomb, made up of about 400g of semtex.
 
Dr John Wyatt, the United Nations’ European consultant on explosives, carried out a series of 20 controlled explosions within brick and corrugated iron constructions in a secluded part of the Kent countryside.
 
Dr Wyatt revealed last night that the experiment was designed to replicate as closely as possible the conditions of the Lockerbie bomb.
 
Radio-cassette recorders, containing semtex and timing devices of the type that led to Megrahi’s conviction, were placed within hard-shell Samsonite suitcases and surrounded by clothing matching the contents of the case that concealed the bomb.
 
The circuit board was completely vaporised in all tests until the amount of semtex was reduced considerably. Only when the scientists went as low as 150g, 37.5% of the quantity that downed Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988, did any trace of the circuit board survive, and it could only be viewed and identified through a microscope.
 
Dr Wyatt said: “We carried out the tests indoors specifically to make it easier to gather up all the residue of the explosions. Until we got down to 150g of semtex, nothing was left but dust.
 
“At 150g, we found one tiny fragment that had been part of the circuit board, and it had to be checked and identified through a microscope. Even at 150g, the device, the circuit board and the radio-cassette recorder had literally disintegrated, a far cry from the evidence presented at the trial.
 
“Before carrying out the tests, I found it quite extraordinary that a 4mm sq fragment had survived an explosion caused by 400g of semtex, had been found among long grass and foliage many miles from Lockerbie and had been identifiable. Now, I find it completely unbelievable.
 
“The tests we carried out showed a consistency that leaves no room for doubt. I don’t think it could have happened. So where did the fragment come from?”
 
That uncomfortable question would have been at the heart of the second appeal against conviction by Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, but he abandoned that appeal a year ago to speed up the process of his compassionate release as he battled prostate cancer.
 
Now, the detail of the tests, and the questions it raises, will be the corner-stone of his book, co-authored by the investigative journalist John Ashton, who latterly worked as an investigator on the defence team preparing Megrahi’s appeal.
 
The book, which may be published before the end of this year, will also outline in detail forensic tests carried out on the fragment in 2008. Those tests showed no trace of explosives residue, meaning that it had never been near the seat of an explosion.
 
The two strands of evidence relating to the fragment are especially powerful as they were not considered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which even without that additional and crucial material judged that the conviction was unsafe.
 
It referred the case back to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, the most damning of which -- especially given that three judges sat without a jury -- was that no reasonable tribunal could have found Megrahi guilty on the evidence heard.
 
Megrahi was convicted of the worst terrorist atrocity in Europe because of two things: the discredited testimony of a Maltese shopkeeper paid $2m for his inconclusive identification evidence; and the remarkable discovery of the fragment, the only piece of forensic evidence that pointed to Libyan involvement.
 
Dr Wyatt’s tests, and the publicity they will receive through publication of Megrahi’s book, will reinforce suspicions long held that the fragment was planted to implicate Libya.
 
Dr Wyatt’s qualifications and integrity are beyond question, unlike the former head of the FBI lab Thomas Thurman, who identified the fragment. Thurman did not even have a science degree and has been barred from giving evidence in murder trials after his testimony in a huge case proved unreliable and was heavily biased to favour the Crown.
 
It was widely believed that Megrahi’s second appeal would expose deep flaws in the Scottish justice system and prove embarrassing for the Crown Office and for senior Scottish and US investigators.
 
At least one former police officer has made sworn statements to the defence implicating former colleagues on both sides of the Atlantic who he says were involved in planting and manipulating evidence to fit Libya and Megrahi.
 
The weakest elements of the case have been exposed repeatedly over the past nine years, including the credibility of the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci.
 
Gauci was recorded admitting he was to be paid for his testimony, had been coached by Scottish detectives before giving evidence and had been given free holidays in Scotland arranged by his police handlers.
 
There has also been growing unease over the integrity of the fragment.
 
In a case with thousands of productions, it had already been remarked upon at Megrahi’s trial that the only production with a label that had been altered was the evidence bag containing the fragment.
 
In their written judgment, the three Scottish judges who sat without a jury said that the attempts of the police officer responsible to explain his actions were “at worst evasive and at best confusing”.
 
However, they concluded that there was no sinister reason either for the re-labelling or for the poor quality of the officer’s evidence, while offering little explanation of how they reached that conclusion.
 
In referring the case back in 2007, the SCCRC -- made up of lawyers and ex-police officers -- took pains to stress that although it believed the conviction might be unsafe, it had not concluded that evidence had been planted or manipulated.
 
But it has now emerged that although they were sent reports on Dr Wyatt’s tests, commissioners working on the case refused to consider them.
 
Legal experts believed a second appeal would certainly have seen Megrahi’s conviction quashed, but expected that it would be done on a technicality to avoid scrutiny of the controversial evidence, and especially how the fragment entered the chain of evidence.
 
Robert Black, retired professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the trial in a neutral country before a panel of judges, has grown weary of the media focus on Megrahi’s controversial release just over a year ago.
 
Originally from Lockerbie, Prof Black, one of Scotland’s most eminent QCs, has even tired of hearing about the fresh revelations in the case.
 
He said last night: “I have decided to stop commenting on new evidence because interesting as it may be, it takes the eye off what really matters, that Megrahi should never have been convicted in the first place on the flimsy evidence before the court.”

[The Scottish edition of the Sun for Monday, 6 September contains a brief report about the Wyatt findings. It can be read here.]

“How Do I Plead? You Tell Me…”

This is the heading over a recent post on the Back Towards The Locus blog by bensix, an occasional commentator on my own blog. It is an entertaining dissection of some of the recent shoddy journalism on the Megrahi case. It can be read here.

Real Crime: Yvonne Fletcher

There was something defiantly old-school about Real Crime: Yvonne Fletcher (ITV1): the unnecessary reconstruction featuring an Yvonne Fletcher lookalike who didn't look anything like Yvonne Fletcher; the newsreel footage of the British ambassador's wife singing the national anthem at Tripoli airport; Leon Brittan looking and sounding every bit as smarmy now as he did when he was home secretary in 1984.

As a recreation of a time when Libya was considered a major threat, Real Crime worked well. But it wasn't a period pastiche; it was a documentary about the shooting of Fletcher outside the Libyan embassy while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration. And here it rather came apart, not so much in the retelling of the events leading up to her death and its aftermath, as in presenter Mark Austin's insistence that it was telling us something new.

According to Austin, the existence of a secret document that says two Libyan embassy workers, Muhammad Matuq and Abdulgader Baghdadi, could be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder is a major new development. Not to the rest of us, it isn't. Within days of the subsequent embassy siege ending with all Libyan personnel being granted safe passage back to Tripoli, it was an open secret that Matuq and Baghdadi were the most likely suspects. (...)

I can understand the frustration of Fletcher's family and friends, given that her alleged killers now have top jobs in the Libyan government; but including personal pieces to camera from former colleagues ("She has been denied justice") and an SAS man ("We should have gone in there and killed the lot of them") is neither enlightening nor helpful. If the programme really wanted to explain the reasons for the absence of a trial, it could have gone a great deal deeper into the complex diplomatic and trade links between Libya and the UK; and to mention the Lockerbie bombing without adding that there are strong doubts about Libya and Megrahi's involvement was a serious miss. Still, I guess that doesn't count as Real Crime.

[The above are excerpts from a TV review by John Crace on The Guardian website.

A related article by Ian Black, the paper's Middle East editor, can be read here.]

US anger over Lockerbie bomber 'destabilising' IRA compensation efforts

[This is the headline over a report just published on the Telegraph website. It reads in part:]

US politicians have been accused of destabilising attempts to persuade Libya to pay compensation to the victims of the IRA by stirring up the row over the release over the Lockerbie bomber.

The bitter transatlantic dispute over responsibility for the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is said to have set back delicate talks on a multi-billion pound settlement. (...)

A coalition of survivors of IRA bombs and families of those killed is pressing for compensation from Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, which supplied Semtex explosives during the Troubles.

Their legal team is also attempting to persuade the oil-rich country to make a major investment in Northern Ireland in reparation for the damage. (...)

(...) in a statement following a meeting with the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt, the group acknowledged that recent events had had a “destabilising effect” on progress.
One Whitehall source added: “It is hard to have discussions with someone about moving forward in a positive relationship through respecting their position when there are other issues coming in, other countries becoming involved as well.”

The Coalition has given its backing to the group's aims amid calls for it to become a key plank of British foreign policy. (...)

Mr Burt said: “The Government continues to support the campaign’s goals.

"Acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims is an essential part of Libya’s full re-engagement with the world.

"Libya’s relations with the international community have been fundamentally transformed in recent years and we have a common interest in moving forward.

"The campaign offers an opportunity to deal with the difficult legacy of the past in the right way.”

Things which don't go away

[This is the heading over an article by William Blum on the Global Research website. The section on Pan Am 103 reads as follows:]

The British government recently warned Libya against celebrating the one-year anniversary of Scotland's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan who's the only person ever convicted of the 1988 blowing up of PanAm flight 103 over Scotland, which took the lives of 270 largely Americans and British. Britain's Foreign Office has declared: "On this anniversary we understand the continuing anguish that al-Megrahi's release has caused his victims both in the UK and the US. He was convicted for the worst act of terrorism in British history. Any celebration of al-Megrahi's release would be tasteless, offensive and deeply insensitive to the victims' families."

John Brennan, President Obama's counter-terrorism adviser, stated that the United States has "expressed our strong conviction" to Scottish officials that Megrahi should not remain free. Brennan criticized what he termed the "unfortunate and inappropriate and wrong decision" to allow Megrahi's return to Libya on compassionate grounds on Aug 20, 2009 because he had cancer and was not expected to live more than about three months. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying that the United States "continues to categorically disagree" with Scotland's decision to release Megrahi a year ago. "As we have expressed repeatedly to Scottish authorities, we maintain that Megrahi should serve out the entirety of his sentence in prison in Scotland." The US Senate has called for an investigation and family members of the crash victims have demanded that Megrahi's medical records be released. The Libyan's failure to die as promised has upset many people.

But how many of our wonderful leaders are upset that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi spent eight years in prison despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that he had anything to do with the bombing of flight 103? The Scottish court that convicted him knew he was innocent. To understand that just read their 2001 "Opinion of the Court", or read my analysis of it at killinghope.org/bblum6/panam.htm.

As to the British government being so upset about Libya celebrating Megrahi's release — keeping in mind that it strongly appears that UK oil deals with Libya played more of a role in his release than his medical condition did — we should remember that in July 1988 an American Navy ship in the Persian Gulf, the Vincennes, shot down an Iranian passenger plane, taking the lives of 290 people; i.e., more than died from flight 103. And while the Iranian people mourned their lost loved ones, the United States celebrated by handing out medals and ribbons to the captain and crew of the Vincennes. The shootdown had another consequence: It inspired Iran to take revenge, which it did in December of that year, financing the operation to blow up PanAm 103 (carried out by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command).

[A similar piece also appears on the Consortium News website.]

David Benson's play: a world-wide event

Showcased in previews in London, Oxford and Bristol and with cautious reviews, few could have guessed that on the cosmopolitan stage of the 2010 Edinburgh Fringe the play would prove a world-wide event. Within days of its first Edinburgh showing word spread that here was something very special, and David Benson found himself performing to sellout audiences.

[The above is the first paragraph of a page on the Lockerbie Truth website devoted to reaction to David Benson's play Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.]

A' cur na mearachd ceart

This is the headline over a long article on the Lockerbie case by Seonaidh Caimbeul in the Gaelic pages of The Scotsman on Saturday, 28 August. In it I am quoted as comparing the miscarriage of justice involved in Abdelbaset Megrahi's conviction to that involved in the conviction of Oscar Slater in 1909 for the murder of Marion Gilchrist. The latter took eighteen years to be rectified. Perhaps the injustice inflicted upon Megrahi can be remedied in a shorter time for the benefit of his family, even if the man himself is not alive to see it.

BP boss again rejects US Senate request to appear at Lockerbie hearing

[This is the headline over a report on the website of The Tripoli Post, Libya's English language daily newspaper. It reads in part:]

The outgoing chief executive of BP has refused US officials' requests to appear at a hearing next month over the release of the Libyan man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.

Tony Hayward told Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, in a letter that he is focusing on ensuring a smooth transition of leadership at the company and will be unable to testify.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking into whether the British-based oil company had sought Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's release to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.

In the letter, obtained by The Associated Press, Mr Hayward noted that UK and Scottish officials said they found no evidence that BP played a role in Al Megrahi's release.

He said BP has nothing to add to those statements. (...)

Al-Megrahi, a Libyan citizen, unfairly served twelve year of a life sentence as a result of miscarriage of justice when a Scottish make-shift court unjustly accused him of involvement in the Dec 21, 1988, bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, most of them Americans, and 11 people on the ground.

In August of last year, Scotland's government released the cancer-stricken man on compassionate grounds and he returned to Libya.

For reasons unclear yet the US Senate is putting much pressure on Britain and Scotland, and with no respect to this state's sovereignty, as to persecute [sic] their former and current officials who may have any relation with the release of the Libyan man from prison.

Megrahi motives

[This is the heading over a letter from Tom Minogue published in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]

Like Tam Dalyell (Letters, 27 August), Dr Jim Swire believes Kenny MacAskill's decision was corrupted by self-interest and he is supporting an inexplicable verdict to protect some of his judges/prosecutors from criticism. [Note by RB: I have no recollection, and certainly no record, of Dr Swire having ever made such a crticism of Kenny MacAskill.] He may well be right in this.

Likewise Megrahi's inexplicable decision to abandon the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission appeal may have been the result of a nod and a wink from those dealing with his compassionate release and if so would have been welcomed by those in the justice establishment. If Megrahi had died waiting for his appeal to be heard there would have been an outcry that the Crown Office had procrastinated for years while this appellant's health faded.

And if Megrahi survived long enough to attend his appeal the prospect of Tony Gauci and his brother being called (from wherever they are now) to explain the millions of dollars gifted them by the US government would have been a disaster for Scotland's reputation for independent justice.

So many political factors have dictated events in the Megrahi saga, but for those who believe that MacAskill acted purely on compassionate grounds I would ask them to listen again to his monotone 20-minute statement to the Scottish Parliament.

Invoking the Almighty was pure political theatre pitched at the Bible Belt rather than his constituents in the Central Belt.

Justice For Megrahi committee put Salmond on the spot

[This is the headline over an article just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]

The Justice for Megrahi Committee, the group who have garnered an international coalition of signatories to a petition calling for a full investigation of the Pan Am 103 event and its aftermath, have written to the First Minister querying his refusal to sign their petition, accusing him of raising "more questions than answers" in his response to the invitation.

"Albeit that he has declined offer, we accept his decision. However, the message delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the invitation raises more questions than it answers insofar as it comes across as confusing and contradictory," the group said.

The committee, who have gathered signatories to their cause as diverse as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, John Pilger, Professor Noam Chomsky, Kate Adie and Parliamentarians Tam Dalyell and Sir Teddy Taylor, have asked Salmond to respond to six questions raised by the response submitted to them in Salmond's name, in which he appears to contradict his earlier position that he was willing to take part in an inquiry into the Pan Am 103 event, the discredited trial and the debacle surrounding Megrahi's release.

"Mr Salmond continues to maintain his stance that the Scottish Government is satisfied with the safety of Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction, thus setting himself squarely against the findings of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in their referral of the case to the Court of Appeal," the group said.

"He does, however, state that he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the United Nations.

"Further to this, according to the Scottish Government’s spokesman, despite confidence in the safety of the verdict, “there remain concerns on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.” If these “concerns” differ from those of JFM’s, what are they? JFM would very much like the Scottish Government to clarify which “concerns” it is alluding to.

"Mr Salmond also consistently contends, as has been reiterated via the Scottish Government’s spokesman in response to the JFM invitation, that “the questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots Law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would, therefore, need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

"With the greatest respect, JFM disputes this. The international nature of the event was not such an impediment when it came to trying Messrs al-Megrahi and Fhimah at Zeist in the first instance, was it? What then is the obstruction now, when it comes to opening a Holyrood inquiry into the safety of a verdict reached under Scots Law?"

The Justice for Megrahi committee's membership includes Dr Jim Swire and Professor Robert Black QC, whose guidance on these matters allowed the international trial to be convened in the Netherlands under Scots law.

"JFM and its signatories seek clarification on the questions raised here resultant from the statement delivered by the Scottish Government’s spokesman. We list the questions below for Mr Salmond’s convenience.

"The questions:

-What are the wider concerns over the Lockerbie case as mentioned in the Scottish Government spokesman’s statement?

-Does the Scottish Government have the authority to set up inquiries?

-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, under whose auspices was the 2003 inquiry into the Scottish Parliament building project, headed by Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, set up?

-If the answer to question 2 is in the negative, is, therefore, the judiciary of Scotland sacrosanct and beyond the scrutiny of the people of Scotland, who pay for it?

-Is the First Minister going to lobby Westminster to request that either UN General Assembly or the Security Council set up an inquiry into the Lockerbie case?

-Given that such a considerable quantity of the evidence required for such inquiry falls under Scottish jurisdiction, what precisely is preventing the Scottish Government from opening an inquiry into the evidence already available to it?"

The full letter to Salmond can be read here.

[As regards question 2, I -- in my wonted spirit of helpfulness -- suggest that the First Minister and his advisers start researching their answer by consulting the Inquiries Act 2005 (c12), particularly sections 1, 27, 28 and 32.

The coverage of this story on the Newsnet Scotland website can be accessed here.]

The right response?

Tony Hayward, the outgoing chief executive of BP, has refused to testify for the second time before a US Senate hearing about BP’s role in the release of the Lockerbie Bomber.

Mr Hayward, who also refused to testify in July shortly after resigning from BP, wrote to US Sen Robert Menendez that he is focused on ensuring a “smooth and successful leadership change” at the company and will be unable to testify. (...)

BP has admitted that Sir Mark Allen, an adviser to the firm, spoke to Jack Straw, the former Justice Secretary, about Britain introducing a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya. Mr Menendez initially planned the hearing for last month, but was forced to postpone it when he could not get Mr Hayward or officials from Britain and Scotland to testify. (...)

Citing public comments from British and Scottish officials saying they found no evidence that BP played a role in al-Megrahi’s release, Mr Hayward in his latest letter said, “BP has nothing to add to these clear, unequivocal statements.”

Mr Menendez has said that although the committee cannot compel foreign nationals to testify at a hearing in the U.S., the committee will look into whether Mr Hayward could be subpoenaed because BP conducts business in the US.

[From a report in today's edition of the Daily Telegraph.

The Washington Post's Spy Talk blog has a post headed "CIA retirees call for escalated probe of Pan Am 103 bomber's release". The Association of Former Intelligence Officers, an organization of CIA and other ex-intelligence officers, is calling for Scotland, Britain and all relevant branches of the US government to cooperate with a US Senate investigation into the circumstances surrounding the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi. A number of US intelligence officers were amongst the victims of Pan Am 103. Now, if AFIO were to call for an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Megrahi's conviction and to call for the US and other governments to make available all documents and evidence pertinent to that issue, that really would be a news story.]

Shock! FBI think they got the right man!

[What follow are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Christian Science Monitor.]

But to Richard Marquise, the lead FBI investigator into the bombing, the public doubts expressed about Megrahi, who was convicted by a tribunal of three Scottish judges in 2001, are puzzling and frustrating. In his 31 years at the FBI, Mr. Marquise said he's rarely seen a "stronger circumstantial case" than the one against Megrahi, who was also caught repeatedly lying to investigators and reporters. "There's nobody else that I'm aware of anywhere in the world that has such evidence pointing to their guilt," he says. (...)

Marquise says that "there were other people that we strongly believed were involved in terms of the planning process and ordering process.... Megrahi was the guy who was assigned to get it done. We think at least six were probably involved if you only had to make an intelligence case, but in terms of making a criminal case, we didn't have strong enough evidence." (...)

But many remain unconvinced -- though, as Marquise and others point out, there's no evidence to support any of a myriad of alternative theories about his guilt. One popular alternative theory, advanced most recently by The Herald newspaper of Scotland on Friday, is that Mohammed Abu Talb, an Egyptian convicted of carrying out other attacks in Europe in the early 1980s on behalf of a Palestinian group, carried out the bombing.

The Herald writes that the "Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against Talb" without actually explaining how this is "understood" or what additional evidence, if any, exists to tie him to the murders. The article also asserts that Mr. Talb was "arrested in connection with the bombing of Pan Am flight 103" in 1989.

Marquise says that last assertion is false and that Talb's arrest in 1989 dealt with a different terrorism case. While Megrahi was proven to have traveled to Malta on a false passport (which he had originally lied about), and to [have] been there on the date that the explosive was placed on the plane, Talb was in Sweden at the time.

The key piece of evidence against Megrahi was a fragment of the timer used for the bomb at Lockerbie, which was of an unusual design. "There were maybe as many as 25 of these timers ever made -- 20 really with a couple of circuit boards left over," says Marquise. "All 20 were hand-delivered to Libyan intelligence."

Another theory floating about is that the British government squashed possibly exculpatory evidence about Megrahi at the time of his trial and has been hiding it ever since. The Guardian newspaper quoted a Scottish human rights lawyer last week as saying that there is a "secret intelligence report" that "is believed to cast serious doubts on prosecution claims that Megrahi used a specific Swiss timer for the bomb."

Again, it isn't clear who believes this or how they could possibly know such the contents of a "secret" document.

"I don’t know if some of these people are reading too many of these spy novels or what," says William Chornyak, another former FBI investigator. "But a lot of the people making these suppositions simply weren't there. It's easy to say, 'I'm going to assume there's some secret document' ... that proves Megrahi is innocent. But where is the document?"

Mr. Chonyak says he's "absolutely" convinced that Megrahi's conviction was accurate. "The evidence is pretty specific, the guy even admitted using a phony passport, and he was caught lying. If a guy is going to lie in one instance, and you have the documentation that proves he lied, he’s going to continue to lie."

"I feel bad for the families," says Marquise. "They got partial justice."

[Readers are invited to compare the above with Lockerbie: A satisfactory process but a flawed result and The SCCRC decision.

Caustic Logic's commentary on The Christian Science Monitor article can be read here on The Lockerbie Divide blog.]

"... you know for certain that it wasn’t Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi ..."

Of course, having made a discovery at the fringe, you find yourself having to follow their progress in subsequent years. Ever since David Benson first moved and astonished us with his uncannily accurate impression of Kenneth Williams but also personalised it by telling us how important Williams had been to him, I have seen him again and again at Edinburgh, but never to quite the same effect. Until yesterday, when he brought a quietly devastating authority and sense of outrage to Lockerbie: Unfinished Business, a documentary recreation of one tireless man’s campaign to find out who was responsible for the terrorist outrage that fateful December night that claimed the life of his young daughter. And by the end of this show, you know for certain that it wasn’t Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the crime but released last year to return to Libya to die of the cancer that he is suffering from. Benson’s performance is the best I expect to see in Edinburgh this year, and perhaps all year.

[From an article by Mark Shenton on the website of The Stage.]

Salmond snubs Megrahi probe bid

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]

First Minister Alex Salmond has turned down an invitation to support a campaign for an international inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.

Salmond received the request from the Justice for Megrahi campaign following comments that he had “nothing to hide” from such an inquiry into the atrocity.

The group has petitioned the UN general assembly to hold an investigation into the Lockerbie case and has drawn a number of high-profile backers including former journalist Kate Adie, writer and campaigner John Pilger, human rights commentator Professor Noam Chomsky and Private Eye editor Ian Hislop.

The First Minister has said he would co-operate fully with an inquiry by an independent authority such as the UN, however, the Scottish Government said it would be inappropriate for Mr Salmond to lend his support to the Justice for Megrahi campaign.

A spokesman said: “On the broader questions of inquiry, the Scottish Government does not doubt the safety of the conviction of Megrahi. Nevertheless, there remain concerns over some on the wider issues of the Lockerbie atrocity.

“The questions to be asked and answered in any such inquiry would be beyond the jurisdiction of Scots law and the remit of the Scottish Government, and such an inquiry would therefore need to be initiated by those with the required power and authority to deal with an issue, international in its nature.”

Meanwhile, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission is understood to have uncovered new evidence that strengthens the case against original suspect Mohammed Abu Talb, who was allegedly funded by Iran to blow up the plane in revenge for the American cruiser USS Vincennes shooting an Iran Air flight out of the sky on July 3, 1988, killing 290 people.

The Egyptian-born militant served as a prosecution witness at the Megrahi trial. Talb has now been freed from prison in Sweden where he served sentences linked to terror attacks in Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

Professor Bob Black, QC, member of the Justice for Megrahi Committee, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by Mr Salmond’s rejection, claiming it would have been a “major step forward” for the campaign.

[What follows is the text of the letter sent -- more in hope than in expectation -- to the First Minister by Justice for Megrahi.]
 
We, the Justice for Megrahi Committee and all signatories to the committee’s activities, wish to convey to you our most sincere gratitude for your recent outspoken comments in the broadcast media in support of an independent United Nations inquiry into circumstances surrounding what has become commonly referred to as the Lockerbie case.
 
You will, on the back of prior correspondence we have sent to you, be fully cognisant of the fact that we lobbied the General Assembly of the UN in September of last year to precisely the same end. In addition to this, we have made approaches to other bodies, most notably the Government of Malta, the Senate of the United States of America and the Scottish Government requesting support for the establishment of an independent public inquiry encompassing: the Fatal Accident Inquiry into the downing of Pan Am 103; the police investigation of the tragedy; the subsequent Kamp van Zeist trial; the acquittal of Mr Fhimah and conviction of Mr Al-Megrahi; the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s referral of Mr Al-Megrahi’s case to the Court of Appeal; and finally, the circumstances surrounding the dropping of Mr Al-Megrahi’s second appeal and his compassionate release. Unfortunately, all our efforts to reach the goal of establishing an inquiry under the auspices of the UN have fallen on deaf ears thus far.
 
However, with the support which you are now clearly giving to this cause, in your capacity as the elected leader of the Scottish people, we are becoming increasingly optimistic of success.
 
You have quite correctly stated your reservations in the past with regard to any given nation state alone setting up an inquiry of any worth on the grounds that they do not individually possess the power of subpoena over other nation states to produce evidence that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the state conducing the inquiry. The obvious choice then is of course to resort to the UN. Regrettably, the General Assembly of the UN is in exactly the same position as individual states are with respect to the international power of subpoena. The only body with such a power is in fact the Security Council of the UN, and this body has ceased to deal with any and all matters relating to the Lockerbie incident (see Security Council binding resolution of 12th September 2003, which states, in operative para 3, that it “hereby removes this item from the list of matters of which the Council is seized”). Therefore, on the assumption that the Security Council may be reluctant to revoke its resolution and that the General Assembly has so far expressed no interest in opening an inquiry, we are at a loss to know how matters could be turned around in New York.
 
Nevertheless, someone of your experience, political acumen and standing as First Minister of Scotland will assuredly manage to make a deeper impact than we have. In that regard, we (JFM committee and signatories) will stand four square behind you in all your endeavours.
 
Should your attempts prove unsuccessful, at least you will have peace of mind in the knowledge that Scotland, unlike any other nation involved in this, is in a position to open its own inquiry without having to concern itself too greatly on the issue of international subpoena powers given that: 

·        The event occurred over and on Scottish territory.
·        The case was investigated by a Scottish police force.
·        The trial was conducted under Scots Law.
·        Mr Al-Megrahi was convicted under Scots Law.
·        Mr Al-Megrahi was imprisoned in a Scottish gaol.
·        The SCCRC referred the second appeal to the Scottish Court of Appeal.
·        Mr Al-Megrahi was given compassionate release by the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice. 

Therefore, much if not all the documentation, and many of the witnesses required to testify before such an inquiry, already lies within the jurisdiction of Scots Law. Thus, no difficulty whatsoever ought to be posed if the Scottish Government itself ultimately decides to open an inquiry into matters relating to the Lockerbie tragedy.
 
Not only do we wish to thank you for your most encouraging public comments and offer you our full support behind any course of action you may take to set up an inquiry, but we wish, moreover, to extend to you a warm invitation to add your name to the list of signatories who have over the last year supported the JFM inquiry campaign. By joining this group, you will be consulted as to strategy and kept up-to-date on all its activities. We are an egalitarian organisation. Whilst some signatories may choose a passive role, others have played an active part in formulating and forwarding our aims throughout. It is an individual choice. Justice for Megrahi is simply grateful to have the support of all of its signatories. Since it is clear that you so evidently identify with our aims, you are most welcome to join us.
 
We are confident that in the points we have made above we speak not only for a large portion of the bereaved of the Lockerbie tragedy, but also for many of the ordinary citizens of Scotland and elsewhere who would like to see a more satisfactory resolution to this issue. Furthermore, it is important to mention that for the inhabitants of the town of Lockerbie to be constantly reminded that their home is synonymous with this appalling event must be intolerable, and an open public inquiry covering events from December 1988 to the present day might contribute in some small way towards returning the town to a degree of normality.
 
We look forward to your response to our invitation and thank you for your time and attention.