Friday, 1 October 2010
Rewards and bribery
This is the heading over a post published today on Caustic Logic's blog The Lockerbie Divide. It reproduces the text of a long contribution by our own blog treasure, Rolfe, on the JREF forum's Lockerbie thread. In it Rolfe outlines the evidence regarding the role that money played in the Pan Am 103 investigators' dealings with witnesses in Malta, including Tony Gauci. It can be read here.
Row sparks new Megrahi records call
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.
The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.
“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”
After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.
The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)
Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”
Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.
“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”
The Scottish Government spokesman said it had published “everything we can, except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations, and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary’s decisions to reject the prisoner transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone – and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors”.
[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]
It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.
It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.
If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?
Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.
I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.
Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.
The clash between the Scottish Government and US Senators has prompted fresh calls for the release of the medical records of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.
The Labour and Tory justice spokesmen said the contradictory claims of Senator Robert Menendez and the Scottish Government had to be cleared up.
The Scottish Government has accused Mr Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, of making factual errors after he accused Scottish ministers of “intentionally skewing” the reasons for freeing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and intervening in the medical diagnosis.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Within due channels of accountability we have been as helpful as possible to the senator, certainly going further than the UK Government or any other group in terms of being helpful.
“We were the only organisation that gave the senator’s staffer the courtesy of a meeting, which others refused.”
After the meeting, the American official reported back that Megrahi had been receiving chemotherapy treatment for cancer while in Greenock Prison and that the three-month prognosis of how long he had to live had been signed off by a GP.
The spokesman rejected both claims, adding that it was “a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point”. (...)
Tory justice spokesman John Lamont said: “There is a gaping contradiction between the words of the US Senate Committee and the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
“Either Mr Megrahi was receiving more medical treatment, so far undisclosed, or he wasn’t. The only way to deal with this is to publish the medical reports.”
Labour spokesman Richard Baker said: “The difference between the Senate’s representatives’ view of their meeting and the Government’s view is mutually exclusive and does not get us any nearer to why Megrahi was actually released.
“Only the full publication of the medical evidence will get to the bottom of this.”
The Scottish Government spokesman said it had published “everything we can, except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations, and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary’s decisions to reject the prisoner transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone – and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors”.
[The same newspaper publishes two letters on the subject. They read as follows:]
It seems the mantra in the Labour Party these days is: “It’s history … move on.” We heard it at the Manchester conference: New Labour is “history … move on”; Tony Blair and Iraq are “history … move on”; Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and the financial mess are “history … move on”.
It is surprising, therefore, that word of this does not seem to have percolated down to their Scottish justice spokesman, Richard Baker, who continues to give ammunition to, or ingratiate himself with, the US Senate committee investigating the early release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi , by querying the professional opinions of the Scottish doctors and cancer specialists whose prognosis of Megrahi’s advanced condition led to his compassionate release.
If they can say of the calls for an appeal against Megrahi’s dubious conviction: “It’s history … move on,” why, then, can Mr Baker not follow apparent Labour Party policy on the Megrahi release?
Perhaps he needs to read it in black and white. “It’s history, Mr Baker … move on.”
Donnie MacNeill, Livingston.
I hear the US senators are now describing the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi as “incredibly flawed, if not purposefully manipulated”.
Ironically, that seems to describe the original conviction almost perfectly.
Morag Kerr, Peeblessshire.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
Scottish Government statement following Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
[Various organs of the media have reported the Scottish Government's reaction to Wednesday's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. The full statement issued by the Scottish Government to the media is as follows:]
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
Commenting on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing today - in which in a prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, said that a review of US government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of Al-Megrahi, and that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release, a Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months. The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'. In all, the First Minister has written three times to Senator Kerry, and five times to Senators Menendez, Lautenberg, Gillibrand, and Schumer. Scottish Government officials also held a courtesy meeting with a member of Senator Menendez's staff, while the UK Government rejected such a request."
Regarding the false claims that a Scottish Government official said that the three-month prognosis was signed off by a primary care physician in the courtesy meeting with a Senate staffer earlier this month, and that Al-Megrahi received chemotherapy treatment in Scotland, the Scottish Government totally rejected these claims - and indeed wrote to the Senate Committee yesterday evening when we became aware of this misinformation.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said:
"The Senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed - we wrote to the Committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.
"As has been stated many times, and was said several times at the meeting between Scottish Government officials and the staffer earlier this month, the advice to the Justice Secretary came from Dr Andrew Fraser, Director of Health and Care of the Scottish Prison Service, and the prognosis was his. It was Dr Fraser's responsibility to prepare the medical report for Mr MacAskill, and Dr Fraser who concluded that his clinical assessment was that a three month prognosis was a reasonable estimate, drawing on the work of a range of specialists and other Scottish Health Service professionals involved in Megrahi's care from when he was first diagnosed with cancer in 2008.
"Dr Fraser is a professional of impeccable integrity.
"Second, it is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point, and it is also a matter of record that his hormone treatment had failed as the firm consensus of specialists was that his condition had become 'hormone resistant'.
"Given the importance of this case, it was appropriate that the most senior health professional in the Scottish Prison Service, Dr Fraser, was responsible for providing the medical report which formed part of the consideration of the application for compassionate release. With the exception of this point, i.e. the most senior SPS health professional providing the report, this is exactly the same process which has been followed in the over 60 cases considered under the relevant legislation passed in 1993.
"Officials met Senator Menendez's staffer as a courtesy, and we demand a full explanation from the Committee for what has happened in a response to our letter as a matter of urgency."
[The Senate staffer's account of events can be read in this report on the BBC News website. The following are extracts:]
The Scottish government was warned US-UK relations would continue to be harmed if permission was refused to talk to the doctors who treated the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi.
In correspondence seen by the BBC, Scottish officials said they were unable to set up the meetings and also rejected a plea for a senate investigator to interview civil servants on a one-to-one basis. (...)
The exchange of e-mails followed a meeting in Edinburgh on 17 September between the lead investigator working on behalf of Senator Menendez and George Burgess, former deputy director of criminal law and licensing.
Mr Burgess was closely involved in the release of Megrahi.
Also there were Kevin Pringle, Alex Salmond's senior special advisor, and two other Scottish civil servants along with a representative from the US embassy in London.
An aide to the senator who is familiar with what happened said: "Burgess confirmed that al-Megrahi received chemotherapy in July 2009. That is a first.
"To date, we only knew that he had received a 'new treatment' in July of 2009.
"The significance of this is very important.
"First, al-Megrahi claimed in documents in both July and August 2009 that he had not received chemotherapy, only exploring the possibility.
"This is now confirmed to be a lie." (...)
Senator Menendez's office insists they were told by Mr Burgess the prognosis that Megrahi had a reasonable life expectancy of three months or less wasn't given by a specialist but a GP - prison doctor Peter Kay.
This is important because a three-month life expectancy is one of the conditions for compassionate release.
"Burgess confirmed that Dr Peter Kay made the prognosis that Al-Megrahi would likely die within three months. This is a first."
It's claimed at this point the first minister's senior adviser, Kevin Pringle, intervened.
"Pringle was very uncomfortable after Burgess made this statement and instead insisted that Dr Fraser (director of health and care at the Scottish Prison Service) had made the prognosis.
"Moreover, Dr Fraser had allegedly done so only after considering all of the specialists and GP feedback. Burgess then became nervous and tried to retract what he had said."
The Scottish government described both these claims as complete nonsense and has written to the senate committee to express its extreme disappointment.
A spokesman also pointed out that the investigator made no notes during the meeting.
A statement said: "The senator's staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the senate committee is misinformed." (...)
But the senator's office have a different assessment.
"Pringle was the Scottish government's 'minder,' sent unannounced to make sure Burgess didn't say too much; Burgess was clearly nervous. And clearly knows more.
"Had I been alone with him or without Pringle, he would have talked: They contradicted themselves repeatedly and made illogical statements/conclusions that were almost laughable if the circumstances weren't so serious."
Following the meeting on 17 September, there was an exchange of e-mails between the American investigator and Scottish government officials.
The investigator wanted to hold private meetings with the six doctors who had treated Megrahi.
He writes to Mr Pringle: "My preference would be to meet with the aforementioned individually."
He then offered to rearrange his return to Washington DC to allow the meetings to take place.
"If I can get authoritative answers to the outstanding medical concerns, I can wrap up my work and we can at last remove both lingering doubts and, ultimately, an irritant in US - UK relations."
A response arrived on 21 September from senior Scottish justice official Nikki Brown: "The provision of medical care to Mr Megrahi which was reflected in Dr Fraser's report to the cabinet secretary was not a process within the remit of the Scottish government, and I am not therefore in a position to commit the medical practitioners involved."
Ms Brown also rules out any further meetings with Scottish government officials.
"We do not believe that a further discussion would serve any purpose."
In his reply, the investigator issues a warning.
"The absence of information and finality surrounding the medical prognosis has led to confusion and speculation. I fear that your decision means that such will remain the case and, indeed, grow louder and more pronounced. Sens Menendez et al cannot wrap up their inquiry until I come to a better understanding on the medical portion of Mr al-Megrahi's release. Consequently, relations will continue to sour."
Doubts remain over Megrahi’s guilt because of payments made to ‘star’ witnesses
[This is the heading over a letter from Dr Jim Swire in today's edition of The Herald. It reads as follows:]
There has been widespread condemnation from the United States, in particular, of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
This condemnation must presuppose that the man was, indeed, guilty of playing a part in the Lockerbie atrocity, yet America is silent concerning the findings of Scotland’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which indicated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
It may be an uncomfortable exercise for the senators, but perhaps they should don their reading glasses and look a lot closer to home. If they will examine the website of their own Rewards for Justice Program in Washington DC, they will find Megrahi’s name among those brought to “justice” by disbursement of RfJ funds.
If they will then look at the website set up on behalf of Megrahi by his defence team, they will find extracts from a policeman’s diary kept during the investigations into Lockerbie on the island of Malta.
These extracts show that the policeman knew that the shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who later claimed haltingly to identify Megrahi in court as the buyer of the clothes, (remains of which were found at the crash site), was increasingly aware of, and excited by, the offer of substantial reward for him if he would give evidence leading to the conviction of Megrahi. All this, of course, long before Mr Gauci actually did give his evidence in court.
If the proprietor of a small Glasgow clothing store, struggling to feed his family, were to be told that if he gave evidence that he had seen a certain individual buy clothes from his shop some years before, he would receive a gift of $2m, would you trust his evidence? The senators might also like to look at the material surrounding a witness known as Giaka, alleged, in the run up to the trial, to be a “star” witness, but who was shown in court to have been on the payroll of the CIA from before Lockerbie and whose evidence was, therefore, seen as suspect by the court. They might also demand a sight of the suite of CIA cables surrounding this man.
Nor need Westminster feel virtuous. Why did the Metropolitan Police investigation into the break-in at Heathrow the night before Lockerbie remain hidden until after the verdict had been reached? The Crown Office has told me it knew nothing about this until after the verdict.
Why did Lady Thatcher write in 1993 in her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, that, following her support for the USAF bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi in 1986 (two years before Lockerbie) “… there was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years”.
We see that Scotland, to whom the solemn task of trying the accused was passed, was on the receiving end of external political interference in what should have been a purely criminal case.
If the senators want to know the truth about this appalling atrocity, let them throw their weight behind the need for a process to be set up within Scotland, objectively to review the case against Megrahi.
Only we ourselves, in the absence of Megrahi’s appeal, can redeem our country’s reputation for justice and humanity, and ensure that our own citizens are protected by a wise and independent judicial system.
[For more from Dr Swire, see the Newsnet Scotland article "Swire: Lockerbie Witness Knew of $2 million Payment for Conviction". The readers' comments -- many supporting an independent inquiry notwithstanding this goes against SNP Government policy -- are also worth reading.]
There has been widespread condemnation from the United States, in particular, of Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi on compassionate grounds.
This condemnation must presuppose that the man was, indeed, guilty of playing a part in the Lockerbie atrocity, yet America is silent concerning the findings of Scotland’s Criminal Cases Review Commission, which indicated that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.
It may be an uncomfortable exercise for the senators, but perhaps they should don their reading glasses and look a lot closer to home. If they will examine the website of their own Rewards for Justice Program in Washington DC, they will find Megrahi’s name among those brought to “justice” by disbursement of RfJ funds.
If they will then look at the website set up on behalf of Megrahi by his defence team, they will find extracts from a policeman’s diary kept during the investigations into Lockerbie on the island of Malta.
These extracts show that the policeman knew that the shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who later claimed haltingly to identify Megrahi in court as the buyer of the clothes, (remains of which were found at the crash site), was increasingly aware of, and excited by, the offer of substantial reward for him if he would give evidence leading to the conviction of Megrahi. All this, of course, long before Mr Gauci actually did give his evidence in court.
If the proprietor of a small Glasgow clothing store, struggling to feed his family, were to be told that if he gave evidence that he had seen a certain individual buy clothes from his shop some years before, he would receive a gift of $2m, would you trust his evidence? The senators might also like to look at the material surrounding a witness known as Giaka, alleged, in the run up to the trial, to be a “star” witness, but who was shown in court to have been on the payroll of the CIA from before Lockerbie and whose evidence was, therefore, seen as suspect by the court. They might also demand a sight of the suite of CIA cables surrounding this man.
Nor need Westminster feel virtuous. Why did the Metropolitan Police investigation into the break-in at Heathrow the night before Lockerbie remain hidden until after the verdict had been reached? The Crown Office has told me it knew nothing about this until after the verdict.
Why did Lady Thatcher write in 1993 in her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, that, following her support for the USAF bombing of Tripoli and Bengazi in 1986 (two years before Lockerbie) “… there was a marked decline in Libyan-sponsored terrorism in succeeding years”.
We see that Scotland, to whom the solemn task of trying the accused was passed, was on the receiving end of external political interference in what should have been a purely criminal case.
If the senators want to know the truth about this appalling atrocity, let them throw their weight behind the need for a process to be set up within Scotland, objectively to review the case against Megrahi.
Only we ourselves, in the absence of Megrahi’s appeal, can redeem our country’s reputation for justice and humanity, and ensure that our own citizens are protected by a wise and independent judicial system.
[For more from Dr Swire, see the Newsnet Scotland article "Swire: Lockerbie Witness Knew of $2 million Payment for Conviction". The readers' comments -- many supporting an independent inquiry notwithstanding this goes against SNP Government policy -- are also worth reading.]
The Al-Megrahi release: one year later
[This is the heading over the official record of yesterday's hearing by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It contains a video of the proceedings and transcripts of the evidence and can be accessed here. I am indebted to blog commentator Bunntamas for supplying this link.
Of the media coverage of the hearing, perhaps the best is in The Wall Street Journal. Its report is headlined "US says Scotland ignored request to examine Lockerbie bomber" and reads in part:]
Scotland disregarded a US request last year for "an independent and comprehensive medical exam" to determine whether the Lockerbie bomber was close enough to death to qualify for compassionate release from jail under Scottish guidelines, a Department of Justice official said Wednesday.
The statement, made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, came in a long-awaited US Senate hearing on the release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi (...)
"The release on compassionate grounds was deeply, deeply flawed and perhaps even intentionally skewed to allow for al-Megrahi's release," Sen Robert Menendez (D, NJ), who chaired the committee, said in his opening remarks.
During the hearing, Mr Swartz said Attorney General Eric Holder told Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill that the US disagreed vehemently with any decision to release Mr Megrahi from jail.
The US also told the Scottish government that, in the event Scotland decided to go against US wishes and release Mr Megrahi anyway, it should do so only under two conditions: One, that Mr Megrahi should first undergo an "independent and comprehensive medical exam establishing that he had three months to live," and two, that Mr Megrahi be kept under observation in Scotland instead of being sent home to Libya, Mr Swartz said.
"As you know, sadly, neither condition was met," Mr Swartz said. (...)
During the hearing, prostate-cancer experts James Mohler and Oliver Sartor testified that the three-month prognosis that secured Mr Megrahi's release made no sense, given that the convicted bomber was considering starting chemotherapy for the first time around the time of his release.
"There is no conceivable way that a cancer specialist or anyone familiar with the treatment of prostate cancer could have given Mr Megrahi a three-month survival prognosis," Dr Mohler said.
Ms McEldowney and Sen Menendez reiterated calls for Scotland to release the full medical documents that led to the prognosis. "The only medical report relevant to the Cabinet Secretary's decision was the report of Dr Andrew Fraser, which has already been published by the Scottish Government," a Scottish government spokeswoman said Wednesday.
[The report in The Times is headlined "Fury at Senate aide’s claim on al-Megrahi treatment" and contains the following:]
Alex Salmond’s government reacted with fury last night after claims were made to a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had received chemotherapy treatment before leaving Scotland.
The suggestion was made by an aide to Senator Robert Menendez, who is heading the Capitol Hill hearing, after a visit by the unnamed member of staff to Scotland earlier this month. The Scottish government said last night that it had written to the Senate hearing demanding that “the misinformation” be corrected.
The aide, in a report to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he had met George Burgess, Scotland’s deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing, at the time of al-Megrahi’s release. According to the aide, Mr Burgess said the bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland.
The aide also claimed that the prognosis that al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, had only three months to live was made by a prison doctor and not, as the Scottish government has said, by Dr Andrew Fraser, the medical director of the Scottish Prison Service. (...)
The aide’s version of events would appear to conflict with the published minute of the prison meeting between al-Megrahi and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, two weeks before the Libyan’s release. This quoted al-Megrahi as telling Mr MacAskill that he was due to start chemotherapy. (...)
A Scottish government spokesman said: “The Senator’s staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed. We wrote to the committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.”
[The Telegraph website's report headlined "Cancer experts brand Lockerbie bomber release 'ridiculous'" can be read here; Newsnet Scotland's report headed "Labour urge US Senators to 'join with us' as both question Megrahi medical evidence" can be read here; that on the website of The Financial Times can be read here; and that on Express website can be read here.]
Of the media coverage of the hearing, perhaps the best is in The Wall Street Journal. Its report is headlined "US says Scotland ignored request to examine Lockerbie bomber" and reads in part:]
Scotland disregarded a US request last year for "an independent and comprehensive medical exam" to determine whether the Lockerbie bomber was close enough to death to qualify for compassionate release from jail under Scottish guidelines, a Department of Justice official said Wednesday.
The statement, made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bruce Swartz, came in a long-awaited US Senate hearing on the release of Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi (...)
"The release on compassionate grounds was deeply, deeply flawed and perhaps even intentionally skewed to allow for al-Megrahi's release," Sen Robert Menendez (D, NJ), who chaired the committee, said in his opening remarks.
During the hearing, Mr Swartz said Attorney General Eric Holder told Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill that the US disagreed vehemently with any decision to release Mr Megrahi from jail.
The US also told the Scottish government that, in the event Scotland decided to go against US wishes and release Mr Megrahi anyway, it should do so only under two conditions: One, that Mr Megrahi should first undergo an "independent and comprehensive medical exam establishing that he had three months to live," and two, that Mr Megrahi be kept under observation in Scotland instead of being sent home to Libya, Mr Swartz said.
"As you know, sadly, neither condition was met," Mr Swartz said. (...)
During the hearing, prostate-cancer experts James Mohler and Oliver Sartor testified that the three-month prognosis that secured Mr Megrahi's release made no sense, given that the convicted bomber was considering starting chemotherapy for the first time around the time of his release.
"There is no conceivable way that a cancer specialist or anyone familiar with the treatment of prostate cancer could have given Mr Megrahi a three-month survival prognosis," Dr Mohler said.
Ms McEldowney and Sen Menendez reiterated calls for Scotland to release the full medical documents that led to the prognosis. "The only medical report relevant to the Cabinet Secretary's decision was the report of Dr Andrew Fraser, which has already been published by the Scottish Government," a Scottish government spokeswoman said Wednesday.
[The report in The Times is headlined "Fury at Senate aide’s claim on al-Megrahi treatment" and contains the following:]
Alex Salmond’s government reacted with fury last night after claims were made to a US Senate committee investigating the release of the Lockerbie bomber that Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi had received chemotherapy treatment before leaving Scotland.
The suggestion was made by an aide to Senator Robert Menendez, who is heading the Capitol Hill hearing, after a visit by the unnamed member of staff to Scotland earlier this month. The Scottish government said last night that it had written to the Senate hearing demanding that “the misinformation” be corrected.
The aide, in a report to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, said that he had met George Burgess, Scotland’s deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing, at the time of al-Megrahi’s release. According to the aide, Mr Burgess said the bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland.
The aide also claimed that the prognosis that al-Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, had only three months to live was made by a prison doctor and not, as the Scottish government has said, by Dr Andrew Fraser, the medical director of the Scottish Prison Service. (...)
The aide’s version of events would appear to conflict with the published minute of the prison meeting between al-Megrahi and Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, two weeks before the Libyan’s release. This quoted al-Megrahi as telling Mr MacAskill that he was due to start chemotherapy. (...)
A Scottish government spokesman said: “The Senator’s staffer has got both these issues entirely wrong, and the Senate Committee is misinformed. We wrote to the committee yesterday informing them of these errors when we became aware of them, and expressing our extreme disappointment.”
[The Telegraph website's report headlined "Cancer experts brand Lockerbie bomber release 'ridiculous'" can be read here; Newsnet Scotland's report headed "Labour urge US Senators to 'join with us' as both question Megrahi medical evidence" can be read here; that on the website of The Financial Times can be read here; and that on Express website can be read here.]
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
US has no records on BP and Lockerbie bomber
[This is the headline over a report from The Associated Press news agency on today's US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. It reads in part:]
A State Department official said Wednesday that a review of government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison.
The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year outraged families of U.S. victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating whether the British-based oil company had sought his freedom to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, told lawmakers that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
BP has acknowledged that it had urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify al-Megrahi's case. (...)
McEldowney noted that in 1998, the US and UK wrote a letter to the United Nations secretary general, outlining an agreement for al-Megrahi and another suspect, Amin Khalifa Fhimah, to be tried before a Scottish court established in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted but Fhimah was acquitted. The letter stated, "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom."
She said that back then, the US sought binding assurances that would happen, but the British countered that they couldn't legally bind the hands of future governments.
"They nonetheless assured us of their political commitment that, if convicted, al-Megrahi would remain in Scotland until the completion of his sentence," McEldowney said.
Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general, said that both the Justice and State departments stressed that al-Megrahi serve his full sentence in Scotland from the very beginning.
"This was one of the earliest issues raised by the United States in connection with the negotiations for a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands, and the United States continued to raise it following Megrahi's conviction and incarceration," he said in prepared testimony.
Wednesday's hearing was originally scheduled for July, but senators postponed it when they couldn't get the man they wanted to testify — outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward. The company instead offered up a regional vice president for Europe.
In a letter to Sen Robert Menendez, D-NJ, this week, Hayward reiterated that BP had no involvement in al-Megrahi's release, and that "no BP witness nor document" could shed any light on the issue.
[A report on the hearing on the STV News website headlined "No evidence of Al-Megrahi deal" contains the following:]
A review of US Government records has found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, it has emerged.
US State Department official Nancy McEldowney confirmed that the Department had "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
She was speaking in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which is investigating claims of a deal between BP and the Libyan and Scottish Governments to release Al-Megrahi in exchange for oil concessions. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months.
“The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'.”
[The report on the BBC News website contains the following:]
Senate committee chairman Robert Menendez also suggested that there had been confusion over whether or not Megrahi had received chemotherapy prior to release.
Megrahi had indicated, and Scottish medical records seemed to confirm, that he had not had chemotherapy, Mr Menendez said.
But the senator said evidence from an unnamed Scottish official suggested Megrahi had started chemotherapy in July 2009.
Mr Menendez said that the conflicting accounts suggested Scottish government documents had been changed. [Note by RB: if Sen Menendez actually said this, then he is an even greater clown and charlatan than I had supposed him to be.]
In its statement, the Scottish government said it was a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point.
[A report on the website of The Financial Times headlined "US says Lockerbie bomber not dying" can be read here; and a report on the Mail website headlined "Lockerbie bomber's release 'manipulated' by Scottish government to say he was close to death claim US senators as BP also blasted over affair" can be read here.]
A State Department official said Wednesday that a review of government records found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of the Lockerbie bomber from a Scottish prison.
The release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi last year outraged families of U.S. victims of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is investigating whether the British-based oil company had sought his freedom to help get a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya off the ground.
In prepared testimony, Nancy McEldowney, a principal deputy assistant secretary, told lawmakers that the State Department has "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
BP has acknowledged that it had urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify al-Megrahi's case. (...)
McEldowney noted that in 1998, the US and UK wrote a letter to the United Nations secretary general, outlining an agreement for al-Megrahi and another suspect, Amin Khalifa Fhimah, to be tried before a Scottish court established in the Netherlands. Al-Megrahi was convicted but Fhimah was acquitted. The letter stated, "If found guilty, the two accused will serve their sentence in the United Kingdom."
She said that back then, the US sought binding assurances that would happen, but the British countered that they couldn't legally bind the hands of future governments.
"They nonetheless assured us of their political commitment that, if convicted, al-Megrahi would remain in Scotland until the completion of his sentence," McEldowney said.
Bruce Swartz, deputy assistant attorney general, said that both the Justice and State departments stressed that al-Megrahi serve his full sentence in Scotland from the very beginning.
"This was one of the earliest issues raised by the United States in connection with the negotiations for a trial before a Scottish court in the Netherlands, and the United States continued to raise it following Megrahi's conviction and incarceration," he said in prepared testimony.
Wednesday's hearing was originally scheduled for July, but senators postponed it when they couldn't get the man they wanted to testify — outgoing BP CEO Tony Hayward. The company instead offered up a regional vice president for Europe.
In a letter to Sen Robert Menendez, D-NJ, this week, Hayward reiterated that BP had no involvement in al-Megrahi's release, and that "no BP witness nor document" could shed any light on the issue.
[A report on the hearing on the STV News website headlined "No evidence of Al-Megrahi deal" contains the following:]
A review of US Government records has found no evidence that oil company BP sought to secure the early release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi, it has emerged.
US State Department official Nancy McEldowney confirmed that the Department had "not identified any materials, beyond publicly available statements and correspondence, concerning attempts by BP or other companies to influence matters" related to al-Megrahi's release.
She was speaking in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, which is investigating claims of a deal between BP and the Libyan and Scottish Governments to release Al-Megrahi in exchange for oil concessions. (...)
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: "With the US State Department saying that there is no evidence whatever that BP played a role in the release of Al-Megrahi, the entire basis of the Senate Committee hearing has fallen away - we have been telling them that in letter after letter, and in a meeting, for many months.
“The Scottish Government has published everything we can - except where permission was withheld by the US and UK administrations - and all of the evidence demonstrates that the Justice Secretary's decisions to reject the Prisoner Transfer application and grant compassionate release were taken on judicial grounds alone - and not political, economic, diplomatic or any other factors.
"Scottish Ministers and officials are accountable to the Scottish Parliament, and the Parliament's Justice Committee held a full inquiry into this issue - which it decided not to re-open.
"Nonetheless, Scottish Ministers have given substantial help to the Senate Committee, and the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Kerry, described the Scottish Government's contribution as 'thoughtful and thorough'.”
[The report on the BBC News website contains the following:]
Senate committee chairman Robert Menendez also suggested that there had been confusion over whether or not Megrahi had received chemotherapy prior to release.
Megrahi had indicated, and Scottish medical records seemed to confirm, that he had not had chemotherapy, Mr Menendez said.
But the senator said evidence from an unnamed Scottish official suggested Megrahi had started chemotherapy in July 2009.
Mr Menendez said that the conflicting accounts suggested Scottish government documents had been changed. [Note by RB: if Sen Menendez actually said this, then he is an even greater clown and charlatan than I had supposed him to be.]
In its statement, the Scottish government said it was a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point.
[A report on the website of The Financial Times headlined "US says Lockerbie bomber not dying" can be read here; and a report on the Mail website headlined "Lockerbie bomber's release 'manipulated' by Scottish government to say he was close to death claim US senators as BP also blasted over affair" can be read here.]
“Ongoing” police investigation into Lockerbie bombing slammed
[This is the heading on a press release just issued by Christine Grahame MSP. It reads as follows:]
Only one full-time Scottish police officer is currently working on the Lockerbie bombing investigation which authorities said was still “ongoing” following the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi. The revelation has prompted SNP MSP Christine Grahame to describe the “open” investigation as little more than a device to avoid Police disclosing a range of controversial material related to the case under Freedom of Information laws. Ms Grahame said:
“Correspondence I have received from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Police has confirmed that only one full-time police officer is currently working on the case.
“The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 previously resulted in the biggest police investigation ever carried out in the UK and I think this revelation simply confirms that the “open” nature of the investigation is little more than a device to avoid the authorities disclosing additional uncomfortable facts which undermine the prosecution case.
“I wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Police back in August to determine what progress had been made in the investigation over the past 12 months, but they are unable to say if they have any new leads.
“I also asked the Chief Constable to confirm whether the Iranian backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command were no longer suspects in the case. I posed this question because the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, recently told journalists that he was unhappy about the manner in which the police investigation failed to thoroughly pursue the links to the PFLP-GC. Lord Fraser implied it was “reasonable” to conclude that members of that terrorist organisation were in fact US intelligence assets and this was the reason that end of the investigation was not followed through and the suspects released before Scottish police investigators were able to interrogate them.
“Dumfries and Galloway Police have not been able to confirm or deny that the Iranian sponsored PFLP-GC remain suspects in this case.
“It is increasingly apparent that only a full and thorough public inquiry will address the outstanding concerns about the safety of the conviction and publicly reveal all the known facts related to this case, including the reasons why key suspects in the PFLP-GC were not properly investigated.
“The fact Dumfries and Galloway Police only have one full time officer working on the case poses some significant questions about how keen they are to pursue all avenues.”
[A report based on this press release appears on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times.
Further information regarding the status of the "investigation" from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway can be found in this blog post from 29 October 2009.]
Only one full-time Scottish police officer is currently working on the Lockerbie bombing investigation which authorities said was still “ongoing” following the release of Abdelbaset al Megrahi. The revelation has prompted SNP MSP Christine Grahame to describe the “open” investigation as little more than a device to avoid Police disclosing a range of controversial material related to the case under Freedom of Information laws. Ms Grahame said:
“Correspondence I have received from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway Police has confirmed that only one full-time police officer is currently working on the case.
“The bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 previously resulted in the biggest police investigation ever carried out in the UK and I think this revelation simply confirms that the “open” nature of the investigation is little more than a device to avoid the authorities disclosing additional uncomfortable facts which undermine the prosecution case.
“I wrote to Dumfries and Galloway Police back in August to determine what progress had been made in the investigation over the past 12 months, but they are unable to say if they have any new leads.
“I also asked the Chief Constable to confirm whether the Iranian backed Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command were no longer suspects in the case. I posed this question because the former Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser, recently told journalists that he was unhappy about the manner in which the police investigation failed to thoroughly pursue the links to the PFLP-GC. Lord Fraser implied it was “reasonable” to conclude that members of that terrorist organisation were in fact US intelligence assets and this was the reason that end of the investigation was not followed through and the suspects released before Scottish police investigators were able to interrogate them.
“Dumfries and Galloway Police have not been able to confirm or deny that the Iranian sponsored PFLP-GC remain suspects in this case.
“It is increasingly apparent that only a full and thorough public inquiry will address the outstanding concerns about the safety of the conviction and publicly reveal all the known facts related to this case, including the reasons why key suspects in the PFLP-GC were not properly investigated.
“The fact Dumfries and Galloway Police only have one full time officer working on the case poses some significant questions about how keen they are to pursue all avenues.”
[A report based on this press release appears on the website of the Maltese newspaper The Times.
Further information regarding the status of the "investigation" from the Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway can be found in this blog post from 29 October 2009.]
Parliamentary petition launched for Holyrood action on Pan Am 103 investigation
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The Justice for Megrahi committee, originators of the international petition calling for a full inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle from 1988 to the present, have announced that they have commenced the launch of an action via the Holyrood public petitions mechanism, to request the Scottish Parliament to initiate action.
The petitions mechanism was launched to allow the public to directly access the legislative process without relying on an MSP to raise proceedings, in theory thereby bypassing potential party political blockades.
Both the Holyrood Parliament and the UK Parliament at Westminster have stated that they would cooperate with such an inquiry, but both have signalled that they believe it is the responsibility of the other Parliament to launch it.
Last week, following his return from Tripoli where he met with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr Jim Swire announced that the UK families of victims of the Pan Am 103 would resurrect the appeal dropped by Megrahi, evidently under pressure and the mistaken belief that it would assist his return to Libya.
He also added that Megrahi's own daughter had become a fully qualified lawyer since his incarceration. It is not yet known if she will play an active part in the resurrected appeal proceedings.
[As soon as the e-petition has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, I shall reproduce its terms on this blog.]
The Justice for Megrahi committee, originators of the international petition calling for a full inquiry into the entire Pan Am 103 debacle from 1988 to the present, have announced that they have commenced the launch of an action via the Holyrood public petitions mechanism, to request the Scottish Parliament to initiate action.
The petitions mechanism was launched to allow the public to directly access the legislative process without relying on an MSP to raise proceedings, in theory thereby bypassing potential party political blockades.
Both the Holyrood Parliament and the UK Parliament at Westminster have stated that they would cooperate with such an inquiry, but both have signalled that they believe it is the responsibility of the other Parliament to launch it.
Last week, following his return from Tripoli where he met with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr Jim Swire announced that the UK families of victims of the Pan Am 103 would resurrect the appeal dropped by Megrahi, evidently under pressure and the mistaken belief that it would assist his return to Libya.
He also added that Megrahi's own daughter had become a fully qualified lawyer since his incarceration. It is not yet known if she will play an active part in the resurrected appeal proceedings.
[As soon as the e-petition has been lodged with the Scottish Parliament's Public Petitions Committee, I shall reproduce its terms on this blog.]
Senate asks why Lockerbie bomber was freed
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of The Wall Street Journal. It reads in part:]
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a long-awaited hearing Wednesday that aims to find out why Scotland last year gave a controversial "compassionate release" to cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
But the session may only widen the gulf between US politicians demanding a more detailed medical explanation of how Mr Megrahi won his freedom and Scottish officials who are declining to provide one.
A Senate staffer's fact-finding trip to Britain this month appears to have produced even more conflict between the US and Scotland, particularly surrounding the details of Mr Megrahi's prognosis and the question of whether he began chemotherapy treatments before or after he was released by the Scots.
The Senate staffer met with George Burgess, who was Scotland's deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing at the time of Mr Megrahi's release. According to an aide to Sen Robert Menendez, (D, NJ), the senator who is heading the hearing, Mr Burgess said the convicted bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland. According to the aide, the Scottish official also said it was Peter Kay, Mr Megrahi's general practitioner in the Scottish prison system, who issued the prognosis that Mr Megrahi had about three months to live—a guideline prisoners must meet to qualify for compassionate release in Scotland. That prognosis was later sanctioned by Scottish Prison Service medical administrator Andrew Fraser. The hearing stands to address both those assertions on Wednesday, the aide said.
Scotland, however, says that isn't an accurate portrayal of what was said in the meeting. Mr Burgess couldn't be reached to comment.
"It is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point," a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said in an email Tuesday. She added that "the responsibility to provide a reasonable estimate of prognosis was Dr Fraser's—no one else's—and therefore the prognosis was his." The spokeswoman didn't say whether Dr Kay agreed to the prognosis, or made it initially. (...)
Mr Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, said he didn't feel comfortable divulging details of his client's medical treatment. Despite the haggling between the US and Scotland over when the chemotherapy began and which doctor made the prognosis, the issue of Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy—which had been discussed around the time of his release—has added weight to the Senate's call for the release of the medical documents.
One of the primary points of inquiry for the Senate is Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy treatment, the aide to Sen Menendez said. Doctors normally wouldn't administer chemotherapy to a patient seen to be three months from death, experts have said.
Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government are sending representatives to testify at the hearing. Nor is BP plc, which has at times been accused of influencing the decision to release Mr. Megrahi to advance its oil interests in Libya. The Senate committee has said it will explore "the possible influence of commercial interests" on Mr Megrahi's release.
BP has said it lobbied to speed the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya ratified in spring 2009. But the oil giant's involvement in the Megrahi case has so far been a moot point. Though Mr Megrahi applied to be transferred under that agreement last year, his application was rejected; instead, he went free thanks to a separate application under Scottish law's provision for compassionate release.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a long-awaited hearing Wednesday that aims to find out why Scotland last year gave a controversial "compassionate release" to cancer-stricken Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.
But the session may only widen the gulf between US politicians demanding a more detailed medical explanation of how Mr Megrahi won his freedom and Scottish officials who are declining to provide one.
A Senate staffer's fact-finding trip to Britain this month appears to have produced even more conflict between the US and Scotland, particularly surrounding the details of Mr Megrahi's prognosis and the question of whether he began chemotherapy treatments before or after he was released by the Scots.
The Senate staffer met with George Burgess, who was Scotland's deputy director for Criminal Law and Licensing at the time of Mr Megrahi's release. According to an aide to Sen Robert Menendez, (D, NJ), the senator who is heading the hearing, Mr Burgess said the convicted bomber began chemotherapy before leaving Scotland. According to the aide, the Scottish official also said it was Peter Kay, Mr Megrahi's general practitioner in the Scottish prison system, who issued the prognosis that Mr Megrahi had about three months to live—a guideline prisoners must meet to qualify for compassionate release in Scotland. That prognosis was later sanctioned by Scottish Prison Service medical administrator Andrew Fraser. The hearing stands to address both those assertions on Wednesday, the aide said.
Scotland, however, says that isn't an accurate portrayal of what was said in the meeting. Mr Burgess couldn't be reached to comment.
"It is a matter of public record that Megrahi was not on chemotherapy treatment in Scotland at any point," a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said in an email Tuesday. She added that "the responsibility to provide a reasonable estimate of prognosis was Dr Fraser's—no one else's—and therefore the prognosis was his." The spokeswoman didn't say whether Dr Kay agreed to the prognosis, or made it initially. (...)
Mr Megrahi's lawyer, Tony Kelly, said he didn't feel comfortable divulging details of his client's medical treatment. Despite the haggling between the US and Scotland over when the chemotherapy began and which doctor made the prognosis, the issue of Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy—which had been discussed around the time of his release—has added weight to the Senate's call for the release of the medical documents.
One of the primary points of inquiry for the Senate is Mr Megrahi's chemotherapy treatment, the aide to Sen Menendez said. Doctors normally wouldn't administer chemotherapy to a patient seen to be three months from death, experts have said.
Neither the Scottish government nor the UK government are sending representatives to testify at the hearing. Nor is BP plc, which has at times been accused of influencing the decision to release Mr. Megrahi to advance its oil interests in Libya. The Senate committee has said it will explore "the possible influence of commercial interests" on Mr Megrahi's release.
BP has said it lobbied to speed the passage of a Prisoner Transfer Agreement between the UK and Libya ratified in spring 2009. But the oil giant's involvement in the Megrahi case has so far been a moot point. Though Mr Megrahi applied to be transferred under that agreement last year, his application was rejected; instead, he went free thanks to a separate application under Scottish law's provision for compassionate release.
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Lockerbie and the senators
[In the context of tomorrow's session of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the release of Mr Megrahi, I think it worthwhile to share the contents of a letter sent by Dr Jim Swire on 28 July 2010 to The Herald but never published.]
In April 1991, before Mr Megrahi had even been indicted, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of the investigating Scottish police was on Malta, and went to interview Vincent Vassallo, manager of the airport cafe at Luqa airport (Malta).
On page 7642 of the publicly available trial transcripts, in giving his evidence Vassallo says:
"What I remember is that when they came to my office, Harry Bell asked me -- he said 'Try to remember well. You know there is a large reward, and if you wish to have more money, perhaps go abroad somewhere, you can do so.'"
So potential monetary rewards seem to have figured in the process from before even the issue of the indictments against Fhima and Megrahi which occurred at the end of 1991, and of course long before the actual trial.
Harry Bell was keeping a diary, but its contents were not divulged to the court, since he had 'left it in Glasgow', though its existence was known to the court, nor was the above allegation from Vassallo taken up by the defence nor the judges.
The contents of the Bell diaries are now in the public domain on the web. They show that DCI Bell was aware of the US reward offers of $10,000 dollars 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow, and that Gauci, the key Maltese shopkeeper witness had become increasingly aware that money was on offer. The FBI officers involved in the case, according to Bell, did not record what role, if any, they had played in the reward scenario. The US organisation 'Rewards for Justice' however records Mr Megrahi's name as someone brought to 'justice' by their payments.
I had hoped to persuade Senator Kerry [Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has, however, delegated the role in relation to the Megrahi issue to Senator Robert Menendez] to raise his sights to the question of whether Megrahi really was guilty or not. That sadly has not happened, but seems rather more important than attempting to link BP to Megrahi's compassionate release.
However perhaps the senators could re-ignite their inquiry by arranging to pay each of those they wish to interview a similar amount for flying over to give evidence to them, though for senior British poIiticians or BP CEOs they might have to request a good deal more money from their 'Rewards for Justice' source, than was on offer to a humble Maltese shopkeeper.
Man, think of the deep-fried Mars bars you could get for that sort of money.
According to my father's edition (1933) of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of a bribe is " A reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct (1535)", but then I don't think there were any senators around in 1535 were there?
Seriously, the situation is that whether the senators wish to address the issue of guilt or not, someone must do so and Scotland has a problem.
Our SCCRC found that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, yet by withdrawing the second appeal, which had been authorised by the SCCRC's findings, Mr Megrahi has effectively blocked the obvious route to a full and honest re-examination of the whole case, since the defence materials remain his property.
We must find a route to re-assess the validity of the verdict, that route must depend on a rigorous reappraisal, under the highest standards of Scots law, but on neither politicians nor bribery.
Justice and truth are beyond price.
In April 1991, before Mr Megrahi had even been indicted, Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell of the investigating Scottish police was on Malta, and went to interview Vincent Vassallo, manager of the airport cafe at Luqa airport (Malta).
On page 7642 of the publicly available trial transcripts, in giving his evidence Vassallo says:
"What I remember is that when they came to my office, Harry Bell asked me -- he said 'Try to remember well. You know there is a large reward, and if you wish to have more money, perhaps go abroad somewhere, you can do so.'"
So potential monetary rewards seem to have figured in the process from before even the issue of the indictments against Fhima and Megrahi which occurred at the end of 1991, and of course long before the actual trial.
Harry Bell was keeping a diary, but its contents were not divulged to the court, since he had 'left it in Glasgow', though its existence was known to the court, nor was the above allegation from Vassallo taken up by the defence nor the judges.
The contents of the Bell diaries are now in the public domain on the web. They show that DCI Bell was aware of the US reward offers of $10,000 dollars 'up front' with $2,000,000 to follow, and that Gauci, the key Maltese shopkeeper witness had become increasingly aware that money was on offer. The FBI officers involved in the case, according to Bell, did not record what role, if any, they had played in the reward scenario. The US organisation 'Rewards for Justice' however records Mr Megrahi's name as someone brought to 'justice' by their payments.
I had hoped to persuade Senator Kerry [Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has, however, delegated the role in relation to the Megrahi issue to Senator Robert Menendez] to raise his sights to the question of whether Megrahi really was guilty or not. That sadly has not happened, but seems rather more important than attempting to link BP to Megrahi's compassionate release.
However perhaps the senators could re-ignite their inquiry by arranging to pay each of those they wish to interview a similar amount for flying over to give evidence to them, though for senior British poIiticians or BP CEOs they might have to request a good deal more money from their 'Rewards for Justice' source, than was on offer to a humble Maltese shopkeeper.
Man, think of the deep-fried Mars bars you could get for that sort of money.
According to my father's edition (1933) of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, one definition of a bribe is " A reward given to pervert the judgment or corrupt the conduct (1535)", but then I don't think there were any senators around in 1535 were there?
Seriously, the situation is that whether the senators wish to address the issue of guilt or not, someone must do so and Scotland has a problem.
Our SCCRC found that the trial might have been a miscarriage of justice, yet by withdrawing the second appeal, which had been authorised by the SCCRC's findings, Mr Megrahi has effectively blocked the obvious route to a full and honest re-examination of the whole case, since the defence materials remain his property.
We must find a route to re-assess the validity of the verdict, that route must depend on a rigorous reappraisal, under the highest standards of Scots law, but on neither politicians nor bribery.
Justice and truth are beyond price.
Witnesses at US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is set to hold a hearing this week over last year's controversial release of the Lockerbie bomber two months after a similar hearing was canceled.
One of the leading senators to press for a probe of the release of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), will preside over the hearing on Wednesday morning. But absent the list of scheduled witnesses are many key figures who declined to attend a planned hearing in July that was canceled because of what Menendez called stonewalling by British and Scottish officials.
Scheduled to testify on Wednesday are Nancy McEldowney, a State Department official who deals with European affairs and Bruce Swartz, who is a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's criminal division. Dr James Mohler, a top urologist at a Buffalo, NY cancer center will also appear before the panel. (...)
In July, Menendez sought the testimony of key figures such as Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who freed al-Megrahi and former UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
They also requested that BP CEO Tony Hayward attend the hearing over suspicions that the company lobbied for Megrahi's release in order to secure oil leases in Libya, the bomber's country of origin.
Menendez said in July that the foreign relations panel would shift its focus to a "longer-term multidimensional inquiry" into al-Megrahi's release (...)
[From a report on the US Congress blog The Hill. Just the tiniest hint here of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
One of the leading senators to press for a probe of the release of Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi, Robert Menendez (D-NJ), will preside over the hearing on Wednesday morning. But absent the list of scheduled witnesses are many key figures who declined to attend a planned hearing in July that was canceled because of what Menendez called stonewalling by British and Scottish officials.
Scheduled to testify on Wednesday are Nancy McEldowney, a State Department official who deals with European affairs and Bruce Swartz, who is a deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice's criminal division. Dr James Mohler, a top urologist at a Buffalo, NY cancer center will also appear before the panel. (...)
In July, Menendez sought the testimony of key figures such as Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who freed al-Megrahi and former UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw.
They also requested that BP CEO Tony Hayward attend the hearing over suspicions that the company lobbied for Megrahi's release in order to secure oil leases in Libya, the bomber's country of origin.
Menendez said in July that the foreign relations panel would shift its focus to a "longer-term multidimensional inquiry" into al-Megrahi's release (...)
[From a report on the US Congress blog The Hill. Just the tiniest hint here of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?]
Monday, 27 September 2010
Angiolini tells Parliament “no evidence of any criminal act” in Pan Am 103 evidence chain
[This is the headline over a news item just published on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It relates to the written answers given by the Lord Advocate to questions submitted by Christine Grahame MSP. The news item reads in part:]
The Lord Advocate has told the Holyrood Parliament that “there is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.”
Elish Angiolini was responding to a Parliamentary question from MSP Christine Grahame (...)
Grahame asked Angiolini if she was aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene in the case.
Former Lord Advocate at the time of the trial, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials, and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
Angiolini said in her Parliamentary answer that she was aware of this information, and confirmed that the fragment was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie event.
"There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation," she said.
“The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service,” she said.
In July 2007, one week after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to High Court for Megrahi’s appeal, former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit stating that he had personally manufactured the fragment, and that it had been introduced falsely into the Crown’s evidence chain. He said that he handed the fragment to authorities investigating the case on 22 June 1989, and admitted committing perjury in the Zeist trial, citing fear of his life if his testimony reflected what he narrated in his affidavit. (...)
Angiolini's answers did not narrate what investigations may have been undertaken within the Crown Office or in Scottish police forces to reach the conclusion that there was no evidence of criminal acts.
This is not the first time the conduct of the trail and its handling has been considered a crime. On 14 October 2005, UN Special Observer Hans Kochler concluded that the conduct of the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmend Al Megrahi had concerned him to the extent that a crime may have taken place at Camp Zeist to manufacture the conviction of Megrahi.
“The falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services, etc. are criminal offenses in any country,” Kochler's office said in a statement.
“In view of the above new revelations and in regard to previously known facts as reported in Dr. Koechler’s reports, the question of possible criminal responsibility, under Scots law, of people involved in the Lockerbie trial should be carefully studied by the competent prosecutorial authorities.”
The Lord Advocate has told the Holyrood Parliament that “there is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.”
Elish Angiolini was responding to a Parliamentary question from MSP Christine Grahame (...)
Grahame asked Angiolini if she was aware of the reported comments of former FBI scientist Frederic Whitehurst implying that the FBI laboratory in Washington DC may constitute an additional crime scene in the case.
Former Lord Advocate at the time of the trial, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, has stated publicly in a television interview for Dutch television in 2009 that he was not aware that the timer fragment known as PT35 was sent to the United States of America for examination by FBI officials, and that he would have opposed such transportation of this fragment on the basis of concerns that it might be lost in transit or provoke accusations that it had been tampered with.
Angiolini said in her Parliamentary answer that she was aware of this information, and confirmed that the fragment was taken to the United States of America by Scottish police officers and a British forensic scientist in June 1990 as part of the investigation into the Lockerbie event.
"There is no evidence of any criminal act having been carried out in relation to any of the forensic evidence in the Lockerbie investigation," she said.
“The fragment remained in the custody and control of the Scottish police officers and the British forensic scientist during the visit to the United States and was subsequently identified as having come from an electronic timer manufactured by a Swiss company, MEBO, to the order of the Libyan intelligence service,” she said.
In July 2007, one week after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back to High Court for Megrahi’s appeal, former MEBO employee Ulrich Lumpert swore an affidavit stating that he had personally manufactured the fragment, and that it had been introduced falsely into the Crown’s evidence chain. He said that he handed the fragment to authorities investigating the case on 22 June 1989, and admitted committing perjury in the Zeist trial, citing fear of his life if his testimony reflected what he narrated in his affidavit. (...)
Angiolini's answers did not narrate what investigations may have been undertaken within the Crown Office or in Scottish police forces to reach the conclusion that there was no evidence of criminal acts.
This is not the first time the conduct of the trail and its handling has been considered a crime. On 14 October 2005, UN Special Observer Hans Kochler concluded that the conduct of the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmend Al Megrahi had concerned him to the extent that a crime may have taken place at Camp Zeist to manufacture the conviction of Megrahi.
“The falsification of evidence, selective presentation of evidence, manipulation of reports, interference into the conduct of judicial proceedings by intelligence services, etc. are criminal offenses in any country,” Kochler's office said in a statement.
“In view of the above new revelations and in regard to previously known facts as reported in Dr. Koechler’s reports, the question of possible criminal responsibility, under Scots law, of people involved in the Lockerbie trial should be carefully studied by the competent prosecutorial authorities.”
US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Megrahi hearing
According to a snippet in The Wall Street Journal, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is due to hold a hearing on the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi on Wednesday, 29 September 2010.
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Megrahi's doctors claim they are trying to cure his cancer
[I am grateful to frequent and valued commentator blogiston for drawing my attention to this report in the Scottish tabloid newspaper the Sunday Mail. It reads in part:]
The Lockerbie bomber’s doctors are trying to cure his cancer, we can reveal.
Senior government sources have told the Sunday Mail that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s treatment was now focused on “cure rather than containment”.
His family said yesterday that he believes he will live to see his name cleared for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie which killed 270 people.
The former Libyan intelligence officer is now splitting his time between his home in the capital Tripoli’s New Damascus suburb and the Tripoli Medical Centre.
A Libyan government source said: “He has amazed everyone with his recovery but is now spending more time in hospital.
“That is because doctors are now more focused on cure, rather than containment.”
A spokesman at the centre declined to comment. (...)
His family said last month that they hoped for a “miracle cure”.
Yesterday, they said he remained in a frail condition but admitted they had increased hope for his long-term prospects.
A spokesman for the family said: “Brother al-Megrahi’s mind is as sharp as ever and he’s putting all of his efforts into clearing his name of this terrible crime.
“The fight for innocence is his absolute passion and all he wants to do is win it.
“He is becoming more and more confident that he can do this and is being given 100 per cent support.”
His brother Abdelnasser said: “He is better but suffering ups and downs, just like any other patient.
“There have been some days which have been very worrying indeed but he is hopeful.”
Megrahi regularly meets legal advisers and government officials who are helping him to examine every detail of the Lockerbie case.
The family spokesman added: “All kind of new evidence is coming to light.
“Much of it will be made public by Brother al-Megrahi when he believes the time is right.”
Megrahi, the only person convicted in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, is viewed as a national hero in Libya.
Many believe his conviction directly led to Britain and the US lifting economic sanctions on the former pariah state.
Earlier this month, Megrahi was visited by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terrorist attack.
The 74-year-old retired GP, who believes Megrahi is innocent, said: ‘‘I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is that he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family and his community and his country.”
Last night, a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “Megrahi was sent home to die on the basis of expert medical advice and he remains terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer.
“As the First Minister said in his letter to US Senators of August 6, ‘the fact remains that Megrahi is dying of cancer’ – and any claims to the contrary are entirely without foundation.”
The Lockerbie bomber’s doctors are trying to cure his cancer, we can reveal.
Senior government sources have told the Sunday Mail that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s treatment was now focused on “cure rather than containment”.
His family said yesterday that he believes he will live to see his name cleared for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103 above Lockerbie which killed 270 people.
The former Libyan intelligence officer is now splitting his time between his home in the capital Tripoli’s New Damascus suburb and the Tripoli Medical Centre.
A Libyan government source said: “He has amazed everyone with his recovery but is now spending more time in hospital.
“That is because doctors are now more focused on cure, rather than containment.”
A spokesman at the centre declined to comment. (...)
His family said last month that they hoped for a “miracle cure”.
Yesterday, they said he remained in a frail condition but admitted they had increased hope for his long-term prospects.
A spokesman for the family said: “Brother al-Megrahi’s mind is as sharp as ever and he’s putting all of his efforts into clearing his name of this terrible crime.
“The fight for innocence is his absolute passion and all he wants to do is win it.
“He is becoming more and more confident that he can do this and is being given 100 per cent support.”
His brother Abdelnasser said: “He is better but suffering ups and downs, just like any other patient.
“There have been some days which have been very worrying indeed but he is hopeful.”
Megrahi regularly meets legal advisers and government officials who are helping him to examine every detail of the Lockerbie case.
The family spokesman added: “All kind of new evidence is coming to light.
“Much of it will be made public by Brother al-Megrahi when he believes the time is right.”
Megrahi, the only person convicted in connection with the Lockerbie bombing, is viewed as a national hero in Libya.
Many believe his conviction directly led to Britain and the US lifting economic sanctions on the former pariah state.
Earlier this month, Megrahi was visited by Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the terrorist attack.
The 74-year-old retired GP, who believes Megrahi is innocent, said: ‘‘I think one of the reasons he has lived so long is that he has had good treatment in Libya and he has been returned to his family and his community and his country.”
Last night, a spokeswoman for the Scottish government said: “Megrahi was sent home to die on the basis of expert medical advice and he remains terminally ill with incurable prostate cancer.
“As the First Minister said in his letter to US Senators of August 6, ‘the fact remains that Megrahi is dying of cancer’ – and any claims to the contrary are entirely without foundation.”
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Dr Jim Swire: 'I am proud to have met Megrahi ... he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie'
[This is the headline over an article published today on the website of the Mirror newspaper. It reads in part:]
They are two men from wildly different backgrounds - but they share the most extraordinary bond.
Dr Jim Swire last week came face to face with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
Jim's daughter Flora was one of the victims, killed the day before her 24th birthday - but, instead of feeling hatred and anger, he embraced Megrahi.
"We are friends," says Jim, 74. "I believe he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie. We know enough about the other to be confident to know we're trying to achieve the same thing - a re-examination of the verdict."
Megrahi, 58, was convicted of mass murder and jailed for life in 2001. But last cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds. Jim, who heard all the evidence at Megrahi's trial, is convinced he's innocent.
Since first meeting in a Scottish prison in 2008, the pair have struck up an unlikely friendship that has outraged many of the relatives of those killed over Lockerbie. (...)
Megrahi was in the middle of a second appeal against his conviction when Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Minister, freed him in August last year.
Megrahi decided to drop the appeal, although it could have continued in his absence and even after his death.
Jim now wants the case reopened to get to the truth of who was behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the single worst terrorist atrocity on British soil. "We met seeking a common goal - the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice," says Jim.
That task now falls upon Scotland and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
"I am entirely satisfied this man was not guilty as charged and that there is much more credible evidence that points to Syria and Iran." (...)
Flora Swire, who wanted to follow in her GP father's footsteps, had been accepted to study medicine at Cambridge when she died, flying to New York to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.
"She would be 45 now," says Jim. "We always feel the gap. Whenever we are together, at birthdays, weddings or Christmas, there's always somebody missing." In her memory, Jim planted Flora's Wood, near their former family home in Bromsgrove, Worcs, which sat on 17 acres. There are thousands of trees, a silent sanctuary shaped in a huge F. Unsurprisingly, Jim was filled with hatred for Megrahi and Libya when charges were first brought.
But after sitting through an unconvincing trial, Jim changed his mind. "I first met him in Greenock Prison, just before Christmas 2008," he says. "By then he was already uncomfortable sitting in a chair - he was known to have cancer in his spine and pelvis.
"I remember feeling glad that he had agreed to see me and by then I had strong doubts in my mind that he was the man who did it, but I wanted to see for myself, to look him in the eye."
The turning point came when Megrahi handed Jim an envelope. "He had been to the prison shop and bought a Christmas card," recalls Jim. "He wrote on it, 'To Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family.' Now that's a pretty remarkable thing for a devout Muslim to give to a Christian just before the Christian festival of Christmas.
"His attitude strongly reinforced my belief that this was not the guy. Imagine being cooped up in an alien prison for something you hadn't done.
Gift "I feel sorry for him. He has spent 10 years of his life locked up, under false pretences I believe, during which time he has developed this rampant cancer." (...)
The fact that Megrahi can now die in dignity surrounded by loved ones gives Jim great comfort but he still wants to lodge a posthumous appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
"If Megrahi's relatives do not wish to push for an appeal, we will," he says.
"I don't want my daughter's death to be remembered against a verdict I think is false. I want to know who did kill her."
At the end of their hour together an exhausted Megrahi began to fade, his eyes falling heavy.
Jim got up out of his seat and clutched his friend's hands. "He is a very sick man and was getting tired," says Jim.
"So I said my goodbyes - maybe I'll see him again before he goes."
They are two men from wildly different backgrounds - but they share the most extraordinary bond.
Dr Jim Swire last week came face to face with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
Jim's daughter Flora was one of the victims, killed the day before her 24th birthday - but, instead of feeling hatred and anger, he embraced Megrahi.
"We are friends," says Jim, 74. "I believe he is the 271st victim of Lockerbie. We know enough about the other to be confident to know we're trying to achieve the same thing - a re-examination of the verdict."
Megrahi, 58, was convicted of mass murder and jailed for life in 2001. But last cancer, he was released on compassionate grounds. Jim, who heard all the evidence at Megrahi's trial, is convinced he's innocent.
Since first meeting in a Scottish prison in 2008, the pair have struck up an unlikely friendship that has outraged many of the relatives of those killed over Lockerbie. (...)
Megrahi was in the middle of a second appeal against his conviction when Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's Justice Minister, freed him in August last year.
Megrahi decided to drop the appeal, although it could have continued in his absence and even after his death.
Jim now wants the case reopened to get to the truth of who was behind the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the single worst terrorist atrocity on British soil. "We met seeking a common goal - the re-examination of the available evidence which led to a verdict we believe was reached under political pressure rather than the rules of justice," says Jim.
That task now falls upon Scotland and those who believe, like me, that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
"I am entirely satisfied this man was not guilty as charged and that there is much more credible evidence that points to Syria and Iran." (...)
Flora Swire, who wanted to follow in her GP father's footsteps, had been accepted to study medicine at Cambridge when she died, flying to New York to spend Christmas with her boyfriend.
"She would be 45 now," says Jim. "We always feel the gap. Whenever we are together, at birthdays, weddings or Christmas, there's always somebody missing." In her memory, Jim planted Flora's Wood, near their former family home in Bromsgrove, Worcs, which sat on 17 acres. There are thousands of trees, a silent sanctuary shaped in a huge F. Unsurprisingly, Jim was filled with hatred for Megrahi and Libya when charges were first brought.
But after sitting through an unconvincing trial, Jim changed his mind. "I first met him in Greenock Prison, just before Christmas 2008," he says. "By then he was already uncomfortable sitting in a chair - he was known to have cancer in his spine and pelvis.
"I remember feeling glad that he had agreed to see me and by then I had strong doubts in my mind that he was the man who did it, but I wanted to see for myself, to look him in the eye."
The turning point came when Megrahi handed Jim an envelope. "He had been to the prison shop and bought a Christmas card," recalls Jim. "He wrote on it, 'To Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family.' Now that's a pretty remarkable thing for a devout Muslim to give to a Christian just before the Christian festival of Christmas.
"His attitude strongly reinforced my belief that this was not the guy. Imagine being cooped up in an alien prison for something you hadn't done.
Gift "I feel sorry for him. He has spent 10 years of his life locked up, under false pretences I believe, during which time he has developed this rampant cancer." (...)
The fact that Megrahi can now die in dignity surrounded by loved ones gives Jim great comfort but he still wants to lodge a posthumous appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission.
"If Megrahi's relatives do not wish to push for an appeal, we will," he says.
"I don't want my daughter's death to be remembered against a verdict I think is false. I want to know who did kill her."
At the end of their hour together an exhausted Megrahi began to fade, his eyes falling heavy.
Jim got up out of his seat and clutched his friend's hands. "He is a very sick man and was getting tired," says Jim.
"So I said my goodbyes - maybe I'll see him again before he goes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)