[What follows is taken from an article entitled Ideology trumps sovereignty? by Stuart Winton published yesterday on the Better Nation website.]
But the stink over the Supreme Court itself reveals a pro-independence split between the more obvious rights-oriented psyche which supports the court’s intervention on the human rights convention’s right to a fair trial, as opposed to the undercurrent of a more illiberal stance from Mr Salmond and Mr MacAskill.
This is perhaps neatly encapsulated in a Scotsman article by Nationalist historian Michael Fry, who arguably displays little appreciation of the impact of ECHR jurisprudence on Scots law irrespective of the Supreme Court aspect – and instead highlights the dangers of British/English law to Scottish legal independence – but who in any case seems to demonstrates a distinctly anti-rights ethos:
“Till a year or two ago, there were no appeals in criminal proceedings beyond the High Court in Edinburgh. Today there is the possibility of or even the invitation to one for cases somehow involving human rights, and such an appeal will go to the Supreme Court in London. So a back door has been left ajar that could be hard to push to: there may be many cases in which clever and unscrupulous Scots defence lawyers will look for, indeed delight in finding, some aspect of human rights. The vaunted independence of the Scottish judiciary could in this area face the fatal risk of absorption into a British system of justice. And here, as in other areas, British may mean in reality English.”
By the same token, it may also be the case that the first minister and justice secretary are more concerned about the reputation of Scotland’s justice system than justice per se, thus their reaction to the Fraser and Cadder cases are perhaps less about the Supreme Court and the procedural and sovereignty aspects than how its decisions are perceived to reflect badly on the efficacy of an independent Scottish nation. Hence this all may represent a continuation of the misgivings regarding the Lockerbie bomber’s conviction, with al-Megrahi’s release on compassionate grounds reflecting more positively on the SNP’s desired perception of Scotland than the can of worms that an inquiry into the whole affair could represent, as dissenting Nationalist voices demonstrate.
Thursday, 23 June 2011
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
A legal fable
This is the title of an article just published on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. Though the article is not on the face of it about Lockerbie, the moral of the story has everything to do with the sort of prosecutorial attitude that resulted in the shocking conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
Tuesday, 21 June 2011
Some Gaddafi regime Lockerbie myths
[What follows is an excerpt from a long report published yesterday on the Libyan (Gaddafi regime supporting) Mathaba news agency website. It is instructive to see the Libyan media peddling myths about Lockerbie that are just as fanciful as those peddled by the Western media (though, of course, very different).]
During the 1990's when Libya was unjustly subjected to a decade of sanctions and no-fly zone by the same colonial powers and the USA, it was African countries that broke the deadlock by refusing to recognise the UN resolutions because those who sponsored them, the usual culprits, had not taken up any initiatives to resolve the issues.
By flying to Libya in violation of the British-American UNSC resolutions, a long-standing plan of Nelson Mandela and Muammar Qaddafi to allow the trial of two Libyans to take place at The Hague in Holland, was finally accepted by the British and Americans, who attempted to pass it off as their own plan.
The Americans paid a Libyan $4 million in order to give false testimony which led to the conviction of one and the release of the other accused, even though both had been charged on the same charges and evidence, and lawyers around the world were stunned. The accused remained in jail for decades, after being transferred to Scotland, and released to die, without compensation.
The initial judges at what was called the "Lockerbie Trial" had resigned ahead of the start of the trial, because of "political pressure exerted upon them to reach a guilty verdict even before the trial had begun", and the trial only started after judges who were willing to go along with the promise to reach a guilty verdict, had been found.
Libya had paid billions of dollars to the families of the victims of the Israeli attack against Pan Am 103, which occurred because of a bomb placed in the skin of the aircraft some weeks earlier with a timer, during a major maintenance overhaul of the Boeing 747 in New York.
As the airliner had been delayed, it blew up over Lockerbie, instead of, as planned, over the Atlantic Ocean where wreckage would not have been found. All VIP, including racist Apartheid South Africa's senior official, various senior American officials, and other VIP's had been taken off the plane before it took off, and mainly students who had been on standby, waiting at the airport to return home to the US for Christmas, took up the seats.
Libya in a deal reached with the US and Britain in order to have the unjust sanctions lifted, gave a statement that "Libya claims responsibility for the actions of its officials", but not at all in reference to any terrorism nor Lockerbie, so that the British and American media could claim that Libya had "claimed responsibility" but adding "for Lockerbie."
To this day many western media, who have not followed the Lockerbie Trial nor developments since, nor bothered to check the facts of the historical record on what statements had been given, continue to wrongly attribute the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Libya, instead of to Israel's MOSSAD.
As the air craft had not meant to be downed over land but far out to sea, within hours of the timer-bomb exploding, the CIA including with helicopters, were on the scene in Scotland, removing evidence, as witnessed by Scottish police and British explosives experts. They could not have arrived so fast, had they not already realised with the delay of take-off, that the plane may crash on land rather than out to sea. The CIA, MOSSAD and Britain's SIS (MI6) work closely together.
During the Lockerbie Trial there was uproar when it was found that the person responsible for briefing the international media during the trial, was exposed as being a senior MI6 officer.
[For the first time in two weeks, the blog yesterday had a visit from within Libya.]
During the 1990's when Libya was unjustly subjected to a decade of sanctions and no-fly zone by the same colonial powers and the USA, it was African countries that broke the deadlock by refusing to recognise the UN resolutions because those who sponsored them, the usual culprits, had not taken up any initiatives to resolve the issues.
By flying to Libya in violation of the British-American UNSC resolutions, a long-standing plan of Nelson Mandela and Muammar Qaddafi to allow the trial of two Libyans to take place at The Hague in Holland, was finally accepted by the British and Americans, who attempted to pass it off as their own plan.
The Americans paid a Libyan $4 million in order to give false testimony which led to the conviction of one and the release of the other accused, even though both had been charged on the same charges and evidence, and lawyers around the world were stunned. The accused remained in jail for decades, after being transferred to Scotland, and released to die, without compensation.
The initial judges at what was called the "Lockerbie Trial" had resigned ahead of the start of the trial, because of "political pressure exerted upon them to reach a guilty verdict even before the trial had begun", and the trial only started after judges who were willing to go along with the promise to reach a guilty verdict, had been found.
Libya had paid billions of dollars to the families of the victims of the Israeli attack against Pan Am 103, which occurred because of a bomb placed in the skin of the aircraft some weeks earlier with a timer, during a major maintenance overhaul of the Boeing 747 in New York.
As the airliner had been delayed, it blew up over Lockerbie, instead of, as planned, over the Atlantic Ocean where wreckage would not have been found. All VIP, including racist Apartheid South Africa's senior official, various senior American officials, and other VIP's had been taken off the plane before it took off, and mainly students who had been on standby, waiting at the airport to return home to the US for Christmas, took up the seats.
Libya in a deal reached with the US and Britain in order to have the unjust sanctions lifted, gave a statement that "Libya claims responsibility for the actions of its officials", but not at all in reference to any terrorism nor Lockerbie, so that the British and American media could claim that Libya had "claimed responsibility" but adding "for Lockerbie."
To this day many western media, who have not followed the Lockerbie Trial nor developments since, nor bothered to check the facts of the historical record on what statements had been given, continue to wrongly attribute the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Libya, instead of to Israel's MOSSAD.
As the air craft had not meant to be downed over land but far out to sea, within hours of the timer-bomb exploding, the CIA including with helicopters, were on the scene in Scotland, removing evidence, as witnessed by Scottish police and British explosives experts. They could not have arrived so fast, had they not already realised with the delay of take-off, that the plane may crash on land rather than out to sea. The CIA, MOSSAD and Britain's SIS (MI6) work closely together.
During the Lockerbie Trial there was uproar when it was found that the person responsible for briefing the international media during the trial, was exposed as being a senior MI6 officer.
[For the first time in two weeks, the blog yesterday had a visit from within Libya.]
Monday, 20 June 2011
Ex Lord Advocate challenged over Pan Am 103 bribery
[This is the headline over a report published today on the website of Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm. It reads as follows:]
The former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has been challenged by Dr Jim Swire to explain his position after he told an Al Jazeera documentary film crew that he accepted a key witness in the Pan Am 103 trial was bribed by Scottish Police.
Fraser, who was Lord Advocate at the time proceedings were raised against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and acquitted co-accused Lhamin Khalifa Fhimah, acknowledged that Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci appeared to have been offered financial inducements for his testimony, which ultimately placed Megrahi in Malta, purchasing clothes linked to an explosive device.
Dr Swire said he had watched the documentary, which disclosed the revelations contained in police diaries, in "astonishment", and said that it added to "defects evident in the trial itself, which indicate a dire need for reappraisal of the trial verdict."
"The Al Jazeera programme used material from the diary of Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell, who had performed a key role in the Scottish police inquiries in Malta. The documentary also highlighted the astonishing provision of 'all expenses paid' holidays in Scotland for the shopkeeper, before he gave his evidence," Swire said.
"During this documentary Lord Peter Fraser, who was Lord Advocate at the relevant times, explained that he was unaware of this offer of money to this key witness, at the time of the trial, but now that it seemed to have been shown to have been the case, he did not believe that the bribe, for such it surely was, had affected Gauci's evidence given under oath in court.
"It would appear to a layman that a bribed witness's evidence should be of little value in a criminal court where 'reasonable doubt' has to be excluded.
"Perhaps initially Lord Fraser would care to explain the position he took 'on camera'," Swire concluded.
Lord Fraser has not made any comment following the broadcast.
The Parliament's petitions committee will hear the fourth presentation from the Justice for Megrahi committee of their application for a full inquiry into the debacle on 28 June.
Swire's letter can be read in full, here.
The former Lord Advocate Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has been challenged by Dr Jim Swire to explain his position after he told an Al Jazeera documentary film crew that he accepted a key witness in the Pan Am 103 trial was bribed by Scottish Police.
Fraser, who was Lord Advocate at the time proceedings were raised against Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and acquitted co-accused Lhamin Khalifa Fhimah, acknowledged that Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci appeared to have been offered financial inducements for his testimony, which ultimately placed Megrahi in Malta, purchasing clothes linked to an explosive device.
Dr Swire said he had watched the documentary, which disclosed the revelations contained in police diaries, in "astonishment", and said that it added to "defects evident in the trial itself, which indicate a dire need for reappraisal of the trial verdict."
"The Al Jazeera programme used material from the diary of Detective Chief Inspector Harry Bell, who had performed a key role in the Scottish police inquiries in Malta. The documentary also highlighted the astonishing provision of 'all expenses paid' holidays in Scotland for the shopkeeper, before he gave his evidence," Swire said.
"During this documentary Lord Peter Fraser, who was Lord Advocate at the relevant times, explained that he was unaware of this offer of money to this key witness, at the time of the trial, but now that it seemed to have been shown to have been the case, he did not believe that the bribe, for such it surely was, had affected Gauci's evidence given under oath in court.
"It would appear to a layman that a bribed witness's evidence should be of little value in a criminal court where 'reasonable doubt' has to be excluded.
"Perhaps initially Lord Fraser would care to explain the position he took 'on camera'," Swire concluded.
Lord Fraser has not made any comment following the broadcast.
The Parliament's petitions committee will hear the fourth presentation from the Justice for Megrahi committee of their application for a full inquiry into the debacle on 28 June.
Swire's letter can be read in full, here.
As Megrahi passes 600-day landmark, was he guilty?
[This is the headline over an article published today on The First Post website. It reads in part:]
The only man ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, passes an extraordinary landmark today: assuming he has not been killed by a Nato missile, then he has now survived 600 days beyond the time limit he was given by medical experts in 2009.
A team of doctors who visited him in Greenock prison on July 28, 2009 gave him three months to live because of his worsening prostate cancer. Based on that prognosis, the Scottish government agreed to free him on compassionate grounds and sent him home to Tripoli so that he might die in the bosom of his family. (...)
Families on both sides of the Atlantic who lost loved ones when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988 were furious that a man found guilty of such a monumental crime should be set free, however ill he might have been. [RB: I saw no sign of such fury from UK relatives of Pan Am 103 victims.]
The fact that he has conspicuously not died from his cancer - and that he was apparently not as ill as the medics believed - has only compounded their fury.
It was hardly surprising that in March this year President Obama announced that if Gaddafi is ousted from power, it will be a condition of the United States working with the Benghazi-based rebels that they find and hand over Megrahi.
Intriguingly, Obama did not say the White House wanted to throw Megrahi back into a prison cell based on his conviction at the 2000-01 trial in the Netherlands. Instead, Obama wants a re-trial under American law. And such a re-trial could exonerate Megrahi.
There is little doubt as the 600 days landmark is reached - and there'll be another 'anniversary' in a few weeks' time when it will be two years since Megrahi was flown home - that the long-rumbling argument that Megrahi was never guilty of the Lockerbie bombing is gaining ground. (...)
Those seeking the truth are now hoping for a legal breakthrough as a result of Scotland scrapping the double jeopardy law which for 800 years prevented a person standing trial twice for the same crime.
Scotland's recently appointed chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at recent failed prosecutions. And according to a report last week by the Scotsman, top of his list of potential re-trials is that of Lamin Khalifa Fhimah.
Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was Megrahi's co-defendant in the 2000-2001 trial, held under Scots law at Camp Zeist, a disused US airbase in the Netherlands. While Megrahi was convicted of murder, Fhimah was acquitted. Gaddafi duly greeted Fhimah on his return to Tripoli in 2001, just as he would welcome Megrahi home eight years later.
According to The Scotsman, Frank Mulholland is examining new evidence against Fhimah. He has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Gaddafi should he be captured alive. And he is eager to speak to Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the former Libyan justice minister who claimed in February to have proof linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.
Although some victims' families are not sure whether Fhimah was any more guilty than Megrahi, they welcome the chance to throw new light on what they see as an unsatisfactory outcome of the Camp Zeist trial.
Jean Berkley, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son in the Lockerbie bombing, told the Scotsman: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.
"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in. Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty."
A Cumbrian priest, the Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter at Lockerbie, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah.
"However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here." [RB: John Mosey, a Protestant pastor, will, I think, be greatly amused to be described as a "priest".]
The only man ever convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, passes an extraordinary landmark today: assuming he has not been killed by a Nato missile, then he has now survived 600 days beyond the time limit he was given by medical experts in 2009.
A team of doctors who visited him in Greenock prison on July 28, 2009 gave him three months to live because of his worsening prostate cancer. Based on that prognosis, the Scottish government agreed to free him on compassionate grounds and sent him home to Tripoli so that he might die in the bosom of his family. (...)
Families on both sides of the Atlantic who lost loved ones when Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up over Lockerbie in December 1988 were furious that a man found guilty of such a monumental crime should be set free, however ill he might have been. [RB: I saw no sign of such fury from UK relatives of Pan Am 103 victims.]
The fact that he has conspicuously not died from his cancer - and that he was apparently not as ill as the medics believed - has only compounded their fury.
It was hardly surprising that in March this year President Obama announced that if Gaddafi is ousted from power, it will be a condition of the United States working with the Benghazi-based rebels that they find and hand over Megrahi.
Intriguingly, Obama did not say the White House wanted to throw Megrahi back into a prison cell based on his conviction at the 2000-01 trial in the Netherlands. Instead, Obama wants a re-trial under American law. And such a re-trial could exonerate Megrahi.
There is little doubt as the 600 days landmark is reached - and there'll be another 'anniversary' in a few weeks' time when it will be two years since Megrahi was flown home - that the long-rumbling argument that Megrahi was never guilty of the Lockerbie bombing is gaining ground. (...)
Those seeking the truth are now hoping for a legal breakthrough as a result of Scotland scrapping the double jeopardy law which for 800 years prevented a person standing trial twice for the same crime.
Scotland's recently appointed chief prosecutor, Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at recent failed prosecutions. And according to a report last week by the Scotsman, top of his list of potential re-trials is that of Lamin Khalifa Fhimah.
Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was Megrahi's co-defendant in the 2000-2001 trial, held under Scots law at Camp Zeist, a disused US airbase in the Netherlands. While Megrahi was convicted of murder, Fhimah was acquitted. Gaddafi duly greeted Fhimah on his return to Tripoli in 2001, just as he would welcome Megrahi home eight years later.
According to The Scotsman, Frank Mulholland is examining new evidence against Fhimah. He has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Gaddafi should he be captured alive. And he is eager to speak to Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, the former Libyan justice minister who claimed in February to have proof linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.
Although some victims' families are not sure whether Fhimah was any more guilty than Megrahi, they welcome the chance to throw new light on what they see as an unsatisfactory outcome of the Camp Zeist trial.
Jean Berkley, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son in the Lockerbie bombing, told the Scotsman: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.
"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in. Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty."
A Cumbrian priest, the Rev John Mosey, who lost his 19-year-old daughter at Lockerbie, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah.
"However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here." [RB: John Mosey, a Protestant pastor, will, I think, be greatly amused to be described as a "priest".]
Sunday, 19 June 2011
The photographic identification of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi
This is the title of a paper prepared by Dr Morag Kerr which can be accessed here. It demonstrates, with illustrations, just how suspect was the alleged identification of Abdelbaset Megrahi as the purchaser from Mary’s House in Sliema, Malta, of the items which were in the suitcase with the bomb that destroyed Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Another lone gunman debunked: Conspiracy and cover-up in Lockerbie
[This is the headline over an article published yesterday on the Bread & Circuses website, vol 3 issue 11. It reads in part:]
In Libya, there were mass celebrations to honor the homecoming of their national hero, while in the Western press, there were repeated protests over the premature release of a convicted terrorist, but the whole sordid affair died within a short time, even if Megrahi hasn’t yet, and it has all been pretty much long forgotten.
If you think that’s the end of the story, you’re wrong. It’s just the beginning. And it’s a story that’s all too familiar, involving international intrigue, the CIA tampering with evidence, lies and cover-ups by disreputable prosecutors, and two world powers anxious to bring about a conviction at all costs, which included a $2 million payoff to buy fabricated witness accounting. As a result, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who may be one of the most hated men in the world, whose deteriorating health was considered too mild a punishment to many people around the world, and who has been incarcerated for perpetrating the attack on Pan-Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland since 1991, may also be innocent.
This won’t be the first time our Government has been involved in a conspiracy to commit murder, to cover up a crime, or to frame an innocent person to protect someone or something it considers more important in the big picture. In this case, the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and Scotland were driven by a powerful need to attach this terrorist attack to a face as soon as possible. Under the circumstances, it served all of their purposes to pin it on a Libyan, without having to go to war with Libya itself. At that point, it didn’t matter all that much which Libyan, since to us Westerners, they all look alike anyway.
Between the eagerness of Scottish prosecutors and Government officials to circumvent the procedures of law to make their story fit the facts, and the $2 million dollars the United States Government put up as a bribe to anyone believable enough sell a phony story to a panel of judges hearing this case, it wasn’t all that difficult to make up a scenario that fit the crime. From beginning to end, there were inconsistencies and problems with the gathering of evidence and procedural misconduct on the part of investigators from the police department and the attorneys building this case. Using every manipulative trick and fraud they could come up with, they managed to hammer the square pegs into the round holes and Megrehi was convicted, in spite of protests not only from him and his attorneys who were denied fair access to police evidence and adequate appeals, but to people around the world who looked at the case against Megrahi and called foul. Those included private investigators from around the world who have taken an unbiased look at the evidence, to Nelson Mandela who pleaded with the Church of Scotland to independently investigate the case against Megrahi on their own.
In 2009, under mounting pressure, the Scottish Government had no choice but to allow the appeal to reopen the case. At this point, the British, American, and Scottish Governments were in a quandary. The latest appeal process and the world attention it was bringing, was going to open more than a can of worms for those closest to the conspiracy. It was going to open all the evidence, including formerly withheld and altered evidence, much of which was clearly tampered with by the authorities pressing for a conviction, to public scrutiny that they were previously able to keep a lid on.
So instead of taking that chance on having to explain the obvious framing and conspiracy to defraud the Courts, a deal was struck and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was set free. While President Obama and Prime Minister Tony Blair were displaying their public outrage over Megrahi’s early release, behind the scenes they were wiping the sweat from each other’s brows, knowing that a serious political crisis had been averted. Unfortunately, the victims and their surviving families of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, must live with the frustration of believing that the murderer of their loved ones was freed on humanitarian grounds, when in fact, they should be more outraged than anyone else that the truth of what really happened will remain buried with the dead.
This is one of those stories that you will not see in the mainstream news media run by multi-national corporations in this country. This story was reported in a documentary film released on Al Jazeera English, the Arab news network. Before you judge the reliability of the source based on prejudices and opinions formulated for you by the American news networks with a strong motive in not wanting us to listen to this news forum with an opened mind, please watch this video and judge for yourself.
In Libya, there were mass celebrations to honor the homecoming of their national hero, while in the Western press, there were repeated protests over the premature release of a convicted terrorist, but the whole sordid affair died within a short time, even if Megrahi hasn’t yet, and it has all been pretty much long forgotten.
If you think that’s the end of the story, you’re wrong. It’s just the beginning. And it’s a story that’s all too familiar, involving international intrigue, the CIA tampering with evidence, lies and cover-ups by disreputable prosecutors, and two world powers anxious to bring about a conviction at all costs, which included a $2 million payoff to buy fabricated witness accounting. As a result, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who may be one of the most hated men in the world, whose deteriorating health was considered too mild a punishment to many people around the world, and who has been incarcerated for perpetrating the attack on Pan-Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland since 1991, may also be innocent.
This won’t be the first time our Government has been involved in a conspiracy to commit murder, to cover up a crime, or to frame an innocent person to protect someone or something it considers more important in the big picture. In this case, the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, and Scotland were driven by a powerful need to attach this terrorist attack to a face as soon as possible. Under the circumstances, it served all of their purposes to pin it on a Libyan, without having to go to war with Libya itself. At that point, it didn’t matter all that much which Libyan, since to us Westerners, they all look alike anyway.
Between the eagerness of Scottish prosecutors and Government officials to circumvent the procedures of law to make their story fit the facts, and the $2 million dollars the United States Government put up as a bribe to anyone believable enough sell a phony story to a panel of judges hearing this case, it wasn’t all that difficult to make up a scenario that fit the crime. From beginning to end, there were inconsistencies and problems with the gathering of evidence and procedural misconduct on the part of investigators from the police department and the attorneys building this case. Using every manipulative trick and fraud they could come up with, they managed to hammer the square pegs into the round holes and Megrehi was convicted, in spite of protests not only from him and his attorneys who were denied fair access to police evidence and adequate appeals, but to people around the world who looked at the case against Megrahi and called foul. Those included private investigators from around the world who have taken an unbiased look at the evidence, to Nelson Mandela who pleaded with the Church of Scotland to independently investigate the case against Megrahi on their own.
In 2009, under mounting pressure, the Scottish Government had no choice but to allow the appeal to reopen the case. At this point, the British, American, and Scottish Governments were in a quandary. The latest appeal process and the world attention it was bringing, was going to open more than a can of worms for those closest to the conspiracy. It was going to open all the evidence, including formerly withheld and altered evidence, much of which was clearly tampered with by the authorities pressing for a conviction, to public scrutiny that they were previously able to keep a lid on.
So instead of taking that chance on having to explain the obvious framing and conspiracy to defraud the Courts, a deal was struck and Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was set free. While President Obama and Prime Minister Tony Blair were displaying their public outrage over Megrahi’s early release, behind the scenes they were wiping the sweat from each other’s brows, knowing that a serious political crisis had been averted. Unfortunately, the victims and their surviving families of the bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, must live with the frustration of believing that the murderer of their loved ones was freed on humanitarian grounds, when in fact, they should be more outraged than anyone else that the truth of what really happened will remain buried with the dead.
This is one of those stories that you will not see in the mainstream news media run by multi-national corporations in this country. This story was reported in a documentary film released on Al Jazeera English, the Arab news network. Before you judge the reliability of the source based on prejudices and opinions formulated for you by the American news networks with a strong motive in not wanting us to listen to this news forum with an opened mind, please watch this video and judge for yourself.
Friday, 17 June 2011
Lautenberg, Menendez call on Clinton & Holder to seek justice for Pan Am 103 bombing
[What follows is the text of a letter sent on 15 June by Senators Lautenberg and Menendez to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder.]
Dear Secretary Clinton and Attorney General Holder:
As high-level Libyan officials continue to defect from the Qaddafi regime, we urge you to do everything in your power to obtain information regarding and hold the responsible parties accountable for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist attacks perpetrated by Libyan officials.
Defecting Libyan officials like former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa may hold valuable information regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing – or may be culpable themselves. The US case to prosecute this heinous crime remains open and our government must do everything possible to gather evidence and any information that could help bring all of those responsible, including Qaddafi, to justice.
As you know, the only person that has been convicted in the Pan Am bombing is now living freely in Libya. On August 20, 2009, the Scottish government released al-Megrahi, based on the assertion that he had less than three months to live. Almost 22 months later, the convicted terrorist is living in luxury in Libya. The families of the victims of Pan Am 103 waited over a decade to see justice with the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, only to have that justice taken away. This is an entirely unacceptable situation and every effort must be made to return al-Megrahi to prison.
The current upheaval in the Libyan government provides a new opportunity to demand responsibility for this act of terrorism. While we recognize there are many critical foreign policy decisions to be made with regard to Libya at this extraordinary time, we ask that justice for the Lockerbie bombing victims and their families remain a top priority and not be overlooked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Dear Secretary Clinton and Attorney General Holder:
As high-level Libyan officials continue to defect from the Qaddafi regime, we urge you to do everything in your power to obtain information regarding and hold the responsible parties accountable for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and other terrorist attacks perpetrated by Libyan officials.
Defecting Libyan officials like former Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa may hold valuable information regarding the Pan Am 103 bombing – or may be culpable themselves. The US case to prosecute this heinous crime remains open and our government must do everything possible to gather evidence and any information that could help bring all of those responsible, including Qaddafi, to justice.
As you know, the only person that has been convicted in the Pan Am bombing is now living freely in Libya. On August 20, 2009, the Scottish government released al-Megrahi, based on the assertion that he had less than three months to live. Almost 22 months later, the convicted terrorist is living in luxury in Libya. The families of the victims of Pan Am 103 waited over a decade to see justice with the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, only to have that justice taken away. This is an entirely unacceptable situation and every effort must be made to return al-Megrahi to prison.
The current upheaval in the Libyan government provides a new opportunity to demand responsibility for this act of terrorism. While we recognize there are many critical foreign policy decisions to be made with regard to Libya at this extraordinary time, we ask that justice for the Lockerbie bombing victims and their families remain a top priority and not be overlooked.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Forensic report on the Lockerbie bombing
[This is the title of a long article by Dr J U Cameron published yesterday on John Cameron's Blog. It reads in part:]
One of the UK’s foremost criminal lawyers, Michael Mansfield has long warned against over-reliance on forensic evidence to secure convictions. He said “Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake that anyone can make is to believe that its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading.” There is, in fact, a kind of “canteen culture” in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than investigators seeking the truth.
At first this did not seem to matter in the aftermath of the destruction Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. It was quickly established by air accident investigators that there had been an explosion in the forward cargo hold in the baggage container AVE 4041. Fragments of a Samsonite suitcase which appeared to have contained the bomb were recovered, together with parts of a Toshiba Bombeat radio cassette recorder in which the bomb had been concealed. There were also items of clothing which looked as if they had also been in the case. At this stage the forensic evidence appeared robust and no credible doubt has been raised in the years since the event that this was the method by which the plane was destroyed.
The police discovered that the baggage container AVE 4041 had been loaded with interline baggage at Heathrow. The baggage had been x-rayed by Sulkash Kamboj of Alert Security, an affiliate company of Pan Am. John Bedford, a loader-driver employed by Pan Am told police that he had placed a number of cases in the container before leaving for a tea break. When he returned he found an additional two cases had been added, one of which was a distinctive brown Samsonite case. Bedford said that Kamboj had told him he had added the two cases. When questioned by the police, Kamboj denied he had added the cases or told Bedford he had done so. This matter was only resolved at the trial when under cross examination Kamboj admitted that Bedford was telling the truth.
All the evidence at this stage pointed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine –General Command (PFLP-GC). Five weeks before Lockerbie, a PFLP-GC cell was apprehended in Germany. Haffez Dalkamoni, right-hand man to the group’s leader Ahmad Jibril, and the bomb-maker, Marwen Khreesat, were arrested while visiting electrical shops in Frankfurt. In the boot of Dalkamoni’s car was a Toshiba cassette recorder with Semtex moulded inside it, a simple time delay switch and a barometric switch. Under German police interrogation, Dalkamoni admitted he had supervised Khreesat when he built bombs into a Toshiba radio cassette player, two radio tuners and a TV monitor. He also admitted that Khreesat had built other bombs including a second Toshiba containing similar pressure switches but he claimed to have no knowledge of its whereabouts.
The involvement of the PFLP-GC was consistent with what was assumed at the time to be the motive for the Pan Am atrocity. In July 1988 Iran Air Flight 655, a passenger jet containing some 300 Iranian pilgrims, had been shot down over the Persian Gulf by the renegade US battlecruiser Vincennes. Not only did America refuse to apologize, the captain of the ship and his gunnery officer were decorated for their actions. This crass behaviour caused outrage within Iran and throughout the Middle East. Tehran Radio condemned the attack as an act of naked aggression and announced it would be avenged ‘in blood-splattered skies’.
Soon the US Air Force Command was issuing warnings to its civilian contractors: ‘We believe Iran will strike back in a tit for tat fashion with mass casualties.’ Later warnings were more specific: ‘We believe Europe is the likely target for a retaliatory attack due to the large concentration of Americans and the established terrorist infrastructures in place throughout Europe.’
Within weeks the CIA reported that Ahmad Jibril, the leader of the PFLP-GC had met government officials in Iran and offered his services. Interpol circulated warnings about the PFLP-GC bombs to all European airports. Heathrow Airport issued its own warning to security staff, stating that it was ‘imperative that when screening or searching radios, radio cassette players and other electrical equipment, staff remain extra vigilant’. After the arrest of the PFLP-GC cell Heathrow received more information, including photographs of the Toshiba bomb from the German authorities.
In the aftermath of Lockerbie, all the Toshiba cassette bombs seized by the Germans were tested and found to run for 30 minutes after they were set. The advantage of the barometric timer employed is that it is not activated until the plane is airborne so the bomb will not go off on the ground if the flight is delayed. Some seven or eight minutes will elapse as the aircraft gains height and the air pressure drops enough to activate a barometric timer set to go off 30 minutes later, i.e. 37 or 38 minutes after the flight took off. It was precisely 38 minutes after Pan Am Flight 103 took off from Heathrow on 21 December 1988 that it exploded over Lockerbie.
The clothing thought to have been in the suitcase with the bomb contained labels which allowed the items to be traced to a shop in Malta. A member of Dalkamoni’s cell, Abu Talb, who was then awaiting trial for separate offences in Sweden, was known to have visited Malta shortly before the atrocity. When first questioned the owner of the shop, Tony Gauci, described the purchaser of the clothes as a dark-skinned, 50 year old man over six feet in height – which fitted Abu Talb – and identified him from a photograph.
The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued a memo on September 24th, 1989 which stated, “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister. The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command leader, for a sum of $1m. $100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Muhammad Hussan Akhari for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.”
A DIA briefing in December 1989 entitled “Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation” confirmed the American belief that Iran was the state sponsor of the bombing. It claimed that the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of the Iran Air 655 airbus was the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation. It specifically discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. It stated: “Following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya in 1986, Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”
Then, in August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait thereby putting at risk the stability of the Saudi and Gulf sheikhdoms on which the West depended to preserve the status quo in the region. A sudden shift of alliances was necessary. If Iraq was to be confronted, then Iran had to be treated with kid gloves and the Syrian regime must be brought on board. At the beginning of 1991 Syrians joined Western troops in the attack on Saddam’s invading army and the increasingly isolated Colonel Gadaffi gradually became the chief suspect on the Lockerbie bombing.
As a result of the change in overall narrative and the fact that there had been absolutely no Libyan activity in London, interest in Heathrow as the scene of the bomb planting suddenly ceased. Now the Maltese connection became crucial. Heretofore it had simply been assumed the clothes were purchased at a Maltese tourist shop in preference to the more regulated shops of Frankfurt or London.
But there was a long standing connection between Malta and Libya which survived all the twists and turns of international diplomacy. In particular, it was one of the key conduits through which essential supplies could be transferred to Tripoli when Gaddafi’s behaviour had provoked yet another set of sanctions being imposed on his country.
The purchaser of the clothes in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta now magically morphed from a non-Libyan giant in late middle age to a youthful, 5’ 7” tall Libyan in his mid-thirties. His name, it appeared was Abdelbaset al Megrahi, head of security for Libyan Airlines. Educated in the USA and Britain, he was also director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. A cosmopolitan figure with a wide range of international contacts it was rumoured that he was used by Libya to import essentials during periods of sanctions. The claim that he had suddenly changed into a terrorist bomber was met with derision at home and abroad. The idea that he and his colleague Khalifah Fhimah, the station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport in Malta, had somehow secreted an unaccompanied suit case onto flight KM180 was thought to be absurd.
The Maltese police also protested that this was a most unlikely scenario. They had questioned the senior airport baggage loader who was adamant that he always double-counted his luggage: once when it was finally gathered and again as it was physically loaded onto the plane. This extremely reliable official was absolutely certain that there were no unaccompanied cases in the luggage that he counted on to the flight. In fact, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta had won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not!
The theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta as a piece of unaccompanied baggage and rattled around Europe before finding its way onto Pan Am 103 in London was widely ridiculed. The excellent screening at Frankfurt would have surely picked it up or, if not, it could well have been lost on the twilight zone of European baggage handling. But the greatest problem lay with the barometric trigger which would have caused flight KM180 to explode 38 minutes into the first leg to Frankfurt. This was the moment when the forensic scientists stepped up to the plate.
The two British scientists involved in the Lockerbie case were the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment’s Alan Feraday and Thomas Hayes. Charred material found some weeks after the bombing in woods near Lockerbie in mysterious circumstances had been sent for analysis to explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent. According to his later testimony Hayes teased out the cloth of one piece of the material, later identified as the neckband of a grey Slalom-brand shirt. Within it he found fragments of white paper, fragments of black plastic, a fragment of metal and a fragment of wire mesh—all subsequently found to be parts of a Toshiba RT-SF 16 and its manual. Hayes testified that he also found embedded a half-inch fragment of circuit board.
The next reference to this famous circuit board fragment occurred when Alan Feraday sent a Polaroid photograph of it to the police officer leading the investigation, Detective Chief Inspector William Williamson, asking for help in identification. In June 1990, Feraday and DCI Williamson visited FBI headquarters in Washington and together with Thomas Thurman, an FBI explosives expert, finally identified the fragment as being part of a timer circuit board.
Thurman’s involvement in identifying the fragment later proved highly controversial because in spite of his claim to be an “explosives forensic expert” he had no formal scientific qualifications whatsoever. He read politics at university and had somehow drifted into the FBI Labs. Worse was to follow when in 1997 the US Inspector-General Michael Bromwich, issued a report stating that in other trials Thurman had “circumvented procedures and protocols, testified to areas of expertise that he had no qualifications and fabricated evidence”. Numerous defendants had to be released and Thurman was fortunate not to be prosecuted himself. He was fired from the FBI labs and banned from acting as an expert witness in any other court case.
Thurman could not therefore give evidence at the Lockerbie trial and the Crown’s case would be further damaged when the testimony of his UK counterpart, Alan Feraday, was called into question. In three separate cases — where Feraday had been the expert witness — men against whom he gave evidence have had their convictions overturned. Like Thurman, Feraday was not actually a professional scientist and in 2005, after yet another successful appeal, the Chief Lord Justice said that “under no circumstances should Feraday be allowed to present himself as an expert witness in electronics”.
By the time of the trial the career of Thomas Hayes was also over because a British Parliamentary inquiry had found he had conspired to withhold evidence in the notorious trial of the Maguire Seven. Sir John May had said, “The whole scientific basis on which the prosecution was founded was in truth so vitiated that on this basis alone the conviction should be set aside.” Hayes jumped before he was pushed and by the time of the trial was working as a chiropodist.
As the argument for a Maltese connection and Libyan involvement progressed the tiny fragment of circuit board became increasingly important. Thurman now “indentified” it as part of a batch made by the Swiss manufacturer Mebo for the Libyan military. This was not the simple design thought to have been used in the Pan Am 103 bombing but a complex type of long timer. Edwin Bollier later revealed that he declined an offer of $4 million by the FBI to testify that the fragment was indeed part of the Mebo MST-13 timer. Fortunately one of his employees, Ulrich Lumpert, was prevailed upon to do so at the trial though later, in a sworn affidavit, he would admit he had lied. The other co-owner of Mebo, Erwin Meister, confirmed that MST–13 timers had been sold to Libya and helpfully identified Megrahi as a “former business contact”.
All the ducks were finally in a line and the Anglo-American authorities indicted the two Libyan suspects in November 1991. Gaddafi was then ordered to extradite them for trial in either the United Kingdom or the United States. Since no bilateral extradition treaty was in force between any of the three countries, he refused to hand the men over but did offer to detain them for trial in Libya, as long as all the incriminating evidence was provided. The offer was unacceptable to the US and UK, and there was an impasse for the next three years.
In November 1994, President Nelson Mandela offered South Africaas a neutral venue for the trial but this was rejected by John Major. A further three years elapsed until Mandela’s offer was repeated to Major’s successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997 and again at the 1997 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997. At the latter meeting, Mandela warned that “no one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge” in the Lockerbie case.
A compromise solution was eventually engineered by the legal academic Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University of a trial in the Netherlands governed by Scots law. Since this was in accordance with the New Labour government’s promotion of an “ethical” foreign policy, it was given political impetus by the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook. A special High Court of Justiciary was set up in a disused United States Air Force base called Camp Zeist in Utrecht.
In recent years no forensic-based case has caused greater concern than the Lockerbie trial and the prosecution has been widely accused of using the tactics of disinformation. The lead prosecutor was the highly controversial Lord Advocate, Colin (later Baron) Boyd who three years before had prosecuted DC McKie in another forensic disaster. The policewoman denied an accusation by Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) fingerprint officers that she left her thumb print at a murder scene in January 1997. She was arrested in March 1998, charged with perjury but at her trial in May 1999 the SCRO fingerprint evidence was rejected out of hand and she was acquitted.
A senior Scottish police officer, James Mackay QPM, was appointed by the Crown Office to investigate the matter and he submitted his report to Boyd in October 2000. It found that the actions of the SCRO personnel amounted to 'collective manipulation and collusion' and four of them were immediately suspended by the SCRO. With the Lockerbie trial in full swing Boyd was obviously reluctant to prosecute the officers involved and to great public indignation he allowed them to be reinstated. It would clearly have damaged his fragile case in the Lockerbie trial to have four of Scotland’s forensic scientists prosecuted for covering up acts of criminality. The finger-print scandal was only resolved in 2006 when the policewoman was awarded £750,000 compensation and Boyd was rightly forced to resign as Lord Advocate.
There were profound inconsistencies in much of the evidence presented to the trial. For instance, the entry of the discovery of the timer fragment was recorded at widely different times by UK and German investigators. The German police files indicate that fragments of the bomb timer were found on the shirt in January 1990. So the shirt collar could hardly have been examined nor the items of evidence extracted on 12 May 1989 as was claimed by Hayes at the trial. German documents also contain photographs showing a piece of the shirt with most of the breast pocket undamaged but the images presented to the trial were different.
It is also disconcerting that an additional page was inserted into the evidence log detailing the discovery of the Slalom shirt with particles of the bomb timer on it. The record of the discovery was inserted into a loose-leaf folder with the five subsequent pages re-numbered by hand – a procedure for which the scientist could offer no explanation at the trial. The prosecution’s evidence looked at times like a co-coordinated effort to mislead the court. Yet the Judges helpfully concluded that the compromised evidence log did not matter because “each item that was examined had the date of examination incorporated into the notes.”
During the trial, MeBo engineer Ulrich Lumpert – whose evidence was crucial in connecting the famous fragment to the Libyan batch – caused consternation by adding that the fragment on display belonged to a timer that had never been connected to a relay, ie had not triggered a bomb. This claim could not be countered by the prosecution because Hayes had inexplicably not thought it necessary to test the tiny timer fragment for explosive residue. However, given their conduct of the trial it came as no surprise that the three Scottish judges were untroubled by what should have been a disaster for the prosecution.
The lead judge was the veteran Lord Sutherland accompanied by an inveterate tribunal chairman, Lord Coulsfield, and the sentencing and parole expert Lord MacLean. They admitted the uncertainties in the testimony and the dangers inherent in “selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which do not fit”. They also admitted it was possible they were “reading into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern and conclusion which was not really justified” but ploughed on regardless.
In the end, the judges accepted that the absence of a credible explanation of how the suitcase was placed into the system at Luqa airport was “a major difficulty for the Crown case”. However they still managed to convince themselves that this was indeed what had happened. “When the evidence regarding the clothing, the purchaser and the timer is taken with the evidence that an unaccompanied bag was taken from KM180 to PA103A, the inference that that was the primary suitcase becomes, in our view, irresistible.” This statement was met with derision in Scotland and rightly dismissed as “inference piled upon inference”.
The judges further accepted that the PFLP-GC were also engaged in terrorist activities during the same period but found “no evidence from which we could infer that they were involved in this particular act of terrorism, and the evidence relating to their activities does not create a reasonable doubt in our minds about the Libyan origin of this crime.”
If most observers found this a very odd way of looking at the evidence, the final decisions of the judges provoked utter consternation. It appeared beyond any shadow of a doubt that the two accused were either both guilty or both not guilty but the Law Lords managed to find clear blue water between them. The judges were unanimous in finding the second accused, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, not guilty of the murder charge. He was freed and he returned to Libya on 1 February 2001.
As for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi the judges said: “There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment.” Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should serve at least 20 years before being eligible for parole.
Huge doubts remain about the prosecution’s case and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in 2007 found prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice. It is clear from their report that the unreliability of the prosecution’s key witness Tony Gauci was one of the main reasons for the referral of Megrahi’s case back to the Appeal Court. Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police during which he gave a series of inconclusive statements and there was evidence that leading questions had been put to him. Gauci was clearly not the “full shilling” as Lord Fraser, Scotland’s senior law officer during the investigation, had admitted. And yet he was not entirely stupid. The Americans paid him $2 million for his revised identification and he now resides in comfortable obscurity in Malta.
The review commission also discovered that the prosecution failed to disclose a document from a foreign power which confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the bomb timer was supplied to countries other than Libya. This document, passed to the commission by the foreign power in question, contained considerable detail about the method used to conceal the bomb and linked it to the PFLP-GC, the first suspects in the investigation. Moreover, the Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi, who provided intelligence for the Germans, had already told the prosecutors in 1996 that the bombing been ordered by Tehran, not Tripoli.
Scientists generally recommend selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. Known as Occam’s razor, we use it to cut out crazy, complicated constructions and to keep theories grounded in the laws of science. The Maltese evidence linking Megrahi to the atrocity is so fragile, so complex and so full of unsupported assumptions it depends almost totally upon the integrity of the forensic scientists. It is therefore unfortunate that it would be difficult to find three more disreputable practioners than Thurman, Hayes and Feraday. It should be a matter of deep concern that Megrahi is the only man convicted on the evidence of these three individuals whose conviction was not reversed on appeal.
There is also no credible evidence that the clothes from Tony Gauci’s shop found among the Lockerbie wreckage were really bought on the day stated in the trial. The sale seemed much more likely to have happened on a day when Abu Talb was on Malta and Megrahi definitely was not. It is also known that when the Swedish police arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they found some of the same batch of clothing in his flat in Uppsala. No explanation for that was forthcoming at the trial.
Finally, the behaviour of the chief prosecutor Colin Boyd, both in concealing the nefarious activity of his forensic scientists and withholding essential evidence from the defence, is utterly reprehensible. Together with lack of moral fiber shown by Lord Cullen and the Court of Criminal Appeal [at Megrahi's first appeal] it has left a permanent stain on the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.
One of the UK’s foremost criminal lawyers, Michael Mansfield has long warned against over-reliance on forensic evidence to secure convictions. He said “Forensic science is not immutable and the biggest mistake that anyone can make is to believe that its practioners are somehow beyond reproach. Some of the worst miscarriages of justice in British legal history have come from cases in which the forensic science was later shown to have been grossly misleading.” There is, in fact, a kind of “canteen culture” in forensic science which encourages officers to see themselves as part of the prosecuting team rather than investigators seeking the truth.
At first this did not seem to matter in the aftermath of the destruction Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie. It was quickly established by air accident investigators that there had been an explosion in the forward cargo hold in the baggage container AVE 4041. Fragments of a Samsonite suitcase which appeared to have contained the bomb were recovered, together with parts of a Toshiba Bombeat radio cassette recorder in which the bomb had been concealed. There were also items of clothing which looked as if they had also been in the case. At this stage the forensic evidence appeared robust and no credible doubt has been raised in the years since the event that this was the method by which the plane was destroyed.
The police discovered that the baggage container AVE 4041 had been loaded with interline baggage at Heathrow. The baggage had been x-rayed by Sulkash Kamboj of Alert Security, an affiliate company of Pan Am. John Bedford, a loader-driver employed by Pan Am told police that he had placed a number of cases in the container before leaving for a tea break. When he returned he found an additional two cases had been added, one of which was a distinctive brown Samsonite case. Bedford said that Kamboj had told him he had added the two cases. When questioned by the police, Kamboj denied he had added the cases or told Bedford he had done so. This matter was only resolved at the trial when under cross examination Kamboj admitted that Bedford was telling the truth.
All the evidence at this stage pointed to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine –General Command (PFLP-GC). Five weeks before Lockerbie, a PFLP-GC cell was apprehended in Germany. Haffez Dalkamoni, right-hand man to the group’s leader Ahmad Jibril, and the bomb-maker, Marwen Khreesat, were arrested while visiting electrical shops in Frankfurt. In the boot of Dalkamoni’s car was a Toshiba cassette recorder with Semtex moulded inside it, a simple time delay switch and a barometric switch. Under German police interrogation, Dalkamoni admitted he had supervised Khreesat when he built bombs into a Toshiba radio cassette player, two radio tuners and a TV monitor. He also admitted that Khreesat had built other bombs including a second Toshiba containing similar pressure switches but he claimed to have no knowledge of its whereabouts.
The involvement of the PFLP-GC was consistent with what was assumed at the time to be the motive for the Pan Am atrocity. In July 1988 Iran Air Flight 655, a passenger jet containing some 300 Iranian pilgrims, had been shot down over the Persian Gulf by the renegade US battlecruiser Vincennes. Not only did America refuse to apologize, the captain of the ship and his gunnery officer were decorated for their actions. This crass behaviour caused outrage within Iran and throughout the Middle East. Tehran Radio condemned the attack as an act of naked aggression and announced it would be avenged ‘in blood-splattered skies’.
Soon the US Air Force Command was issuing warnings to its civilian contractors: ‘We believe Iran will strike back in a tit for tat fashion with mass casualties.’ Later warnings were more specific: ‘We believe Europe is the likely target for a retaliatory attack due to the large concentration of Americans and the established terrorist infrastructures in place throughout Europe.’
Within weeks the CIA reported that Ahmad Jibril, the leader of the PFLP-GC had met government officials in Iran and offered his services. Interpol circulated warnings about the PFLP-GC bombs to all European airports. Heathrow Airport issued its own warning to security staff, stating that it was ‘imperative that when screening or searching radios, radio cassette players and other electrical equipment, staff remain extra vigilant’. After the arrest of the PFLP-GC cell Heathrow received more information, including photographs of the Toshiba bomb from the German authorities.
In the aftermath of Lockerbie, all the Toshiba cassette bombs seized by the Germans were tested and found to run for 30 minutes after they were set. The advantage of the barometric timer employed is that it is not activated until the plane is airborne so the bomb will not go off on the ground if the flight is delayed. Some seven or eight minutes will elapse as the aircraft gains height and the air pressure drops enough to activate a barometric timer set to go off 30 minutes later, i.e. 37 or 38 minutes after the flight took off. It was precisely 38 minutes after Pan Am Flight 103 took off from Heathrow on 21 December 1988 that it exploded over Lockerbie.
The clothing thought to have been in the suitcase with the bomb contained labels which allowed the items to be traced to a shop in Malta. A member of Dalkamoni’s cell, Abu Talb, who was then awaiting trial for separate offences in Sweden, was known to have visited Malta shortly before the atrocity. When first questioned the owner of the shop, Tony Gauci, described the purchaser of the clothes as a dark-skinned, 50 year old man over six feet in height – which fitted Abu Talb – and identified him from a photograph.
The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) issued a memo on September 24th, 1989 which stated, “The bombing of the Pan Am flight was conceived, authorised and financed by Ali-Akbar Mohtashemi-Pur, Iran’s former interior minister. The execution of the operation was contracted to Ahmad Jibril, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command leader, for a sum of $1m. $100,000 of this money was given to Jibril up front in Damascus by the Iranian ambassador to Syria, Muhammad Hussan Akhari for initial expenses. The remainder of the money was to be paid after successful completion of the mission.”
A DIA briefing in December 1989 entitled “Pan Am 103, Deadly Co-operation” confirmed the American belief that Iran was the state sponsor of the bombing. It claimed that the PFLP-GC was “fast becoming an Iranian proxy” and that the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 to avenge the shooting down of the Iran Air 655 airbus was the result of such Iranian and PFLP-GC co-operation. It specifically discounted Libya’s involvement in the bombing on the basis that there was “no current credible intelligence” implicating her. It stated: “Following a brief increase in anti-US terrorist attacks after the US airstrike on Libya in 1986, Gaddafi has made an effort to distance Libya from terrorist attacks.”
Then, in August 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait thereby putting at risk the stability of the Saudi and Gulf sheikhdoms on which the West depended to preserve the status quo in the region. A sudden shift of alliances was necessary. If Iraq was to be confronted, then Iran had to be treated with kid gloves and the Syrian regime must be brought on board. At the beginning of 1991 Syrians joined Western troops in the attack on Saddam’s invading army and the increasingly isolated Colonel Gadaffi gradually became the chief suspect on the Lockerbie bombing.
As a result of the change in overall narrative and the fact that there had been absolutely no Libyan activity in London, interest in Heathrow as the scene of the bomb planting suddenly ceased. Now the Maltese connection became crucial. Heretofore it had simply been assumed the clothes were purchased at a Maltese tourist shop in preference to the more regulated shops of Frankfurt or London.
But there was a long standing connection between Malta and Libya which survived all the twists and turns of international diplomacy. In particular, it was one of the key conduits through which essential supplies could be transferred to Tripoli when Gaddafi’s behaviour had provoked yet another set of sanctions being imposed on his country.
The purchaser of the clothes in Tony Gauci’s shop in Malta now magically morphed from a non-Libyan giant in late middle age to a youthful, 5’ 7” tall Libyan in his mid-thirties. His name, it appeared was Abdelbaset al Megrahi, head of security for Libyan Airlines. Educated in the USA and Britain, he was also director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli. A cosmopolitan figure with a wide range of international contacts it was rumoured that he was used by Libya to import essentials during periods of sanctions. The claim that he had suddenly changed into a terrorist bomber was met with derision at home and abroad. The idea that he and his colleague Khalifah Fhimah, the station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines at Luqa Airport in Malta, had somehow secreted an unaccompanied suit case onto flight KM180 was thought to be absurd.
The Maltese police also protested that this was a most unlikely scenario. They had questioned the senior airport baggage loader who was adamant that he always double-counted his luggage: once when it was finally gathered and again as it was physically loaded onto the plane. This extremely reliable official was absolutely certain that there were no unaccompanied cases in the luggage that he counted on to the flight. In fact, not only was there no evidence that the bomb had been put on board in Malta, but Air Malta had won a libel action in 1993 establishing that it was not!
The theory that the bomb entered the system in Malta as a piece of unaccompanied baggage and rattled around Europe before finding its way onto Pan Am 103 in London was widely ridiculed. The excellent screening at Frankfurt would have surely picked it up or, if not, it could well have been lost on the twilight zone of European baggage handling. But the greatest problem lay with the barometric trigger which would have caused flight KM180 to explode 38 minutes into the first leg to Frankfurt. This was the moment when the forensic scientists stepped up to the plate.
The two British scientists involved in the Lockerbie case were the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment’s Alan Feraday and Thomas Hayes. Charred material found some weeks after the bombing in woods near Lockerbie in mysterious circumstances had been sent for analysis to explosives laboratory at Fort Halstead in Kent. According to his later testimony Hayes teased out the cloth of one piece of the material, later identified as the neckband of a grey Slalom-brand shirt. Within it he found fragments of white paper, fragments of black plastic, a fragment of metal and a fragment of wire mesh—all subsequently found to be parts of a Toshiba RT-SF 16 and its manual. Hayes testified that he also found embedded a half-inch fragment of circuit board.
The next reference to this famous circuit board fragment occurred when Alan Feraday sent a Polaroid photograph of it to the police officer leading the investigation, Detective Chief Inspector William Williamson, asking for help in identification. In June 1990, Feraday and DCI Williamson visited FBI headquarters in Washington and together with Thomas Thurman, an FBI explosives expert, finally identified the fragment as being part of a timer circuit board.
Thurman’s involvement in identifying the fragment later proved highly controversial because in spite of his claim to be an “explosives forensic expert” he had no formal scientific qualifications whatsoever. He read politics at university and had somehow drifted into the FBI Labs. Worse was to follow when in 1997 the US Inspector-General Michael Bromwich, issued a report stating that in other trials Thurman had “circumvented procedures and protocols, testified to areas of expertise that he had no qualifications and fabricated evidence”. Numerous defendants had to be released and Thurman was fortunate not to be prosecuted himself. He was fired from the FBI labs and banned from acting as an expert witness in any other court case.
Thurman could not therefore give evidence at the Lockerbie trial and the Crown’s case would be further damaged when the testimony of his UK counterpart, Alan Feraday, was called into question. In three separate cases — where Feraday had been the expert witness — men against whom he gave evidence have had their convictions overturned. Like Thurman, Feraday was not actually a professional scientist and in 2005, after yet another successful appeal, the Chief Lord Justice said that “under no circumstances should Feraday be allowed to present himself as an expert witness in electronics”.
By the time of the trial the career of Thomas Hayes was also over because a British Parliamentary inquiry had found he had conspired to withhold evidence in the notorious trial of the Maguire Seven. Sir John May had said, “The whole scientific basis on which the prosecution was founded was in truth so vitiated that on this basis alone the conviction should be set aside.” Hayes jumped before he was pushed and by the time of the trial was working as a chiropodist.
As the argument for a Maltese connection and Libyan involvement progressed the tiny fragment of circuit board became increasingly important. Thurman now “indentified” it as part of a batch made by the Swiss manufacturer Mebo for the Libyan military. This was not the simple design thought to have been used in the Pan Am 103 bombing but a complex type of long timer. Edwin Bollier later revealed that he declined an offer of $4 million by the FBI to testify that the fragment was indeed part of the Mebo MST-13 timer. Fortunately one of his employees, Ulrich Lumpert, was prevailed upon to do so at the trial though later, in a sworn affidavit, he would admit he had lied. The other co-owner of Mebo, Erwin Meister, confirmed that MST–13 timers had been sold to Libya and helpfully identified Megrahi as a “former business contact”.
All the ducks were finally in a line and the Anglo-American authorities indicted the two Libyan suspects in November 1991. Gaddafi was then ordered to extradite them for trial in either the United Kingdom or the United States. Since no bilateral extradition treaty was in force between any of the three countries, he refused to hand the men over but did offer to detain them for trial in Libya, as long as all the incriminating evidence was provided. The offer was unacceptable to the US and UK, and there was an impasse for the next three years.
In November 1994, President Nelson Mandela offered South Africaas a neutral venue for the trial but this was rejected by John Major. A further three years elapsed until Mandela’s offer was repeated to Major’s successor, Tony Blair, when the president visited London in July 1997 and again at the 1997 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997. At the latter meeting, Mandela warned that “no one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge” in the Lockerbie case.
A compromise solution was eventually engineered by the legal academic Professor Robert Black of Edinburgh University of a trial in the Netherlands governed by Scots law. Since this was in accordance with the New Labour government’s promotion of an “ethical” foreign policy, it was given political impetus by the then foreign secretary, Robin Cook. A special High Court of Justiciary was set up in a disused United States Air Force base called Camp Zeist in Utrecht.
In recent years no forensic-based case has caused greater concern than the Lockerbie trial and the prosecution has been widely accused of using the tactics of disinformation. The lead prosecutor was the highly controversial Lord Advocate, Colin (later Baron) Boyd who three years before had prosecuted DC McKie in another forensic disaster. The policewoman denied an accusation by Scottish Criminal Record Office (SCRO) fingerprint officers that she left her thumb print at a murder scene in January 1997. She was arrested in March 1998, charged with perjury but at her trial in May 1999 the SCRO fingerprint evidence was rejected out of hand and she was acquitted.
A senior Scottish police officer, James Mackay QPM, was appointed by the Crown Office to investigate the matter and he submitted his report to Boyd in October 2000. It found that the actions of the SCRO personnel amounted to 'collective manipulation and collusion' and four of them were immediately suspended by the SCRO. With the Lockerbie trial in full swing Boyd was obviously reluctant to prosecute the officers involved and to great public indignation he allowed them to be reinstated. It would clearly have damaged his fragile case in the Lockerbie trial to have four of Scotland’s forensic scientists prosecuted for covering up acts of criminality. The finger-print scandal was only resolved in 2006 when the policewoman was awarded £750,000 compensation and Boyd was rightly forced to resign as Lord Advocate.
There were profound inconsistencies in much of the evidence presented to the trial. For instance, the entry of the discovery of the timer fragment was recorded at widely different times by UK and German investigators. The German police files indicate that fragments of the bomb timer were found on the shirt in January 1990. So the shirt collar could hardly have been examined nor the items of evidence extracted on 12 May 1989 as was claimed by Hayes at the trial. German documents also contain photographs showing a piece of the shirt with most of the breast pocket undamaged but the images presented to the trial were different.
It is also disconcerting that an additional page was inserted into the evidence log detailing the discovery of the Slalom shirt with particles of the bomb timer on it. The record of the discovery was inserted into a loose-leaf folder with the five subsequent pages re-numbered by hand – a procedure for which the scientist could offer no explanation at the trial. The prosecution’s evidence looked at times like a co-coordinated effort to mislead the court. Yet the Judges helpfully concluded that the compromised evidence log did not matter because “each item that was examined had the date of examination incorporated into the notes.”
During the trial, MeBo engineer Ulrich Lumpert – whose evidence was crucial in connecting the famous fragment to the Libyan batch – caused consternation by adding that the fragment on display belonged to a timer that had never been connected to a relay, ie had not triggered a bomb. This claim could not be countered by the prosecution because Hayes had inexplicably not thought it necessary to test the tiny timer fragment for explosive residue. However, given their conduct of the trial it came as no surprise that the three Scottish judges were untroubled by what should have been a disaster for the prosecution.
The lead judge was the veteran Lord Sutherland accompanied by an inveterate tribunal chairman, Lord Coulsfield, and the sentencing and parole expert Lord MacLean. They admitted the uncertainties in the testimony and the dangers inherent in “selecting parts of the evidence which seem to fit together and ignoring parts which do not fit”. They also admitted it was possible they were “reading into a mass of conflicting evidence a pattern and conclusion which was not really justified” but ploughed on regardless.
In the end, the judges accepted that the absence of a credible explanation of how the suitcase was placed into the system at Luqa airport was “a major difficulty for the Crown case”. However they still managed to convince themselves that this was indeed what had happened. “When the evidence regarding the clothing, the purchaser and the timer is taken with the evidence that an unaccompanied bag was taken from KM180 to PA103A, the inference that that was the primary suitcase becomes, in our view, irresistible.” This statement was met with derision in Scotland and rightly dismissed as “inference piled upon inference”.
The judges further accepted that the PFLP-GC were also engaged in terrorist activities during the same period but found “no evidence from which we could infer that they were involved in this particular act of terrorism, and the evidence relating to their activities does not create a reasonable doubt in our minds about the Libyan origin of this crime.”
If most observers found this a very odd way of looking at the evidence, the final decisions of the judges provoked utter consternation. It appeared beyond any shadow of a doubt that the two accused were either both guilty or both not guilty but the Law Lords managed to find clear blue water between them. The judges were unanimous in finding the second accused, Lamin Khalifah Fhimah, not guilty of the murder charge. He was freed and he returned to Libya on 1 February 2001.
As for Abdelbaset al-Megrahi the judges said: “There is nothing in the evidence which leaves us with any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the first accused, and accordingly we find him guilty of the remaining charge in the indictment.” Megrahi was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he should serve at least 20 years before being eligible for parole.
Huge doubts remain about the prosecution’s case and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) in 2007 found prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice. It is clear from their report that the unreliability of the prosecution’s key witness Tony Gauci was one of the main reasons for the referral of Megrahi’s case back to the Appeal Court. Gauci had been interviewed 17 times by Scottish and Maltese police during which he gave a series of inconclusive statements and there was evidence that leading questions had been put to him. Gauci was clearly not the “full shilling” as Lord Fraser, Scotland’s senior law officer during the investigation, had admitted. And yet he was not entirely stupid. The Americans paid him $2 million for his revised identification and he now resides in comfortable obscurity in Malta.
The review commission also discovered that the prosecution failed to disclose a document from a foreign power which confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that the bomb timer was supplied to countries other than Libya. This document, passed to the commission by the foreign power in question, contained considerable detail about the method used to conceal the bomb and linked it to the PFLP-GC, the first suspects in the investigation. Moreover, the Iranian defector Abolghasem Mesbahi, who provided intelligence for the Germans, had already told the prosecutors in 1996 that the bombing been ordered by Tehran, not Tripoli.
Scientists generally recommend selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions. Known as Occam’s razor, we use it to cut out crazy, complicated constructions and to keep theories grounded in the laws of science. The Maltese evidence linking Megrahi to the atrocity is so fragile, so complex and so full of unsupported assumptions it depends almost totally upon the integrity of the forensic scientists. It is therefore unfortunate that it would be difficult to find three more disreputable practioners than Thurman, Hayes and Feraday. It should be a matter of deep concern that Megrahi is the only man convicted on the evidence of these three individuals whose conviction was not reversed on appeal.
There is also no credible evidence that the clothes from Tony Gauci’s shop found among the Lockerbie wreckage were really bought on the day stated in the trial. The sale seemed much more likely to have happened on a day when Abu Talb was on Malta and Megrahi definitely was not. It is also known that when the Swedish police arrested Abu Talb for a different terrorist offence they found some of the same batch of clothing in his flat in Uppsala. No explanation for that was forthcoming at the trial.
Finally, the behaviour of the chief prosecutor Colin Boyd, both in concealing the nefarious activity of his forensic scientists and withholding essential evidence from the defence, is utterly reprehensible. Together with lack of moral fiber shown by Lord Cullen and the Court of Criminal Appeal [at Megrahi's first appeal] it has left a permanent stain on the reputation of the entire Scottish legal system.
Thursday, 16 June 2011
Tony Kelly v Alex Salmond?
A leading human-rights lawyer is considering suing Alex Salmond, claiming that the First Minister has undermined his professional integrity.
Tony Kelly sought legal advice after he was criticised by Mr Salmond in a magazine interview in which the SNP leader claimed that the lawyer believed that the judicial system was there to "make sure" he could make an "incredibly comfortable living". (...)
Prof Kelly, a visiting professor at Strathclyde University, said he was "sad" that the First Minister had called into question his "professional integrity" and described Mr Salmond's comments as a "personal slur".
He added: "For a politician to attack me for the work that I do and to mistake so seriously my motivation cannot be left unremarked upon.
"With regret, I have had to take legal advice and following upon that, given the nature of attacks upon me, I have decided to formalise my position."
The Scotsman understands that Prof Kelly is waiting to see what response he receives from Mr Salmond before deciding how far to take his legal action. (...)
Referring to compensation paid out to prisoners, Mr Salmond suggested that Prof Kelly "believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999".
The interview [in Holyrood magazine] also saw Mr Salmond make an unprecedented personal attack on Lord Hope of Craighead, one of two Scottish judges who sit on the UK Supreme Court, arguing that his rulings were allowing the "vilest people on the planet" to be compensated by the taxpayer. (...)
Tony Kelly's most famous client was undoubtedly Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent who was freed by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill despite being convicted of the Lockerbie [bombing].
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. A similar report in The Herald contains the following:]
The First Minister told Holyrood magazine: “The judicial system does not exist to serve Professor Kelly, it exists to serve the people and any judicial system which allows that to happen would fall into disrepute, and what’s more, it costs lives because if you take £100 million out of the justice budget you cost lives; less police, less courts, less effective justice and incidentally, less Legal Aid and it is an inevitable consequence of that sort of thing.”
Prof Kelly, who represented the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, initially said he was “upset” at the remarks, claiming they were “wholly without foundation”.
But he raised the stakes last night when he announced he had taken the first steps towards suing Mr Salmond through the English courts, where the legal system allows the use of controversial conditional fee arrangements in defamation cases.
He added: “I am sad that the First Minister has called into question my professional integrity.
“I act for the most maligned in our society and in so doing fully expect that such a role is disliked and at times misunderstood by others.
“However, for a politician to attack me for the work that I do – and to mistake so seriously my motivation – cannot be left unremarked upon.”
Prof Kelly continued: “Human rights for those imprisoned are not popular. They tell us some things that we do not like to hear – the courts have repeatedly told the Government that it has breached human rights – including some of the most important articles on the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It is a matter of regret that the First Minister appears to lay blame at the door of the law, the judges, the courts and now, finally, the lawyers for taking them forward.
“Mr Salmond, in directing his comments in my direction, fails once again to deal with the issues of principle involved in the matters that I take forward on behalf of clients.
“The continued violation of human rights by the Government will, I hope, still be able to be challenged, or – as with his Justice Secretary’s comments about the Supreme Court – is this Mr Salmond telling me that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’?”
Tony Kelly sought legal advice after he was criticised by Mr Salmond in a magazine interview in which the SNP leader claimed that the lawyer believed that the judicial system was there to "make sure" he could make an "incredibly comfortable living". (...)
Prof Kelly, a visiting professor at Strathclyde University, said he was "sad" that the First Minister had called into question his "professional integrity" and described Mr Salmond's comments as a "personal slur".
He added: "For a politician to attack me for the work that I do and to mistake so seriously my motivation cannot be left unremarked upon.
"With regret, I have had to take legal advice and following upon that, given the nature of attacks upon me, I have decided to formalise my position."
The Scotsman understands that Prof Kelly is waiting to see what response he receives from Mr Salmond before deciding how far to take his legal action. (...)
Referring to compensation paid out to prisoners, Mr Salmond suggested that Prof Kelly "believes that the judicial system is there to serve their interests and make sure they can make an incredibly comfortable living by trailing around the prison cells and other establishments of Scotland trying to find what might be construed as a breach of human rights of an unlimited liability back to 1999".
The interview [in Holyrood magazine] also saw Mr Salmond make an unprecedented personal attack on Lord Hope of Craighead, one of two Scottish judges who sit on the UK Supreme Court, arguing that his rulings were allowing the "vilest people on the planet" to be compensated by the taxpayer. (...)
Tony Kelly's most famous client was undoubtedly Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan intelligence agent who was freed by justice secretary Kenny MacAskill despite being convicted of the Lockerbie [bombing].
[From a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. A similar report in The Herald contains the following:]
The First Minister told Holyrood magazine: “The judicial system does not exist to serve Professor Kelly, it exists to serve the people and any judicial system which allows that to happen would fall into disrepute, and what’s more, it costs lives because if you take £100 million out of the justice budget you cost lives; less police, less courts, less effective justice and incidentally, less Legal Aid and it is an inevitable consequence of that sort of thing.”
Prof Kelly, who represented the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, initially said he was “upset” at the remarks, claiming they were “wholly without foundation”.
But he raised the stakes last night when he announced he had taken the first steps towards suing Mr Salmond through the English courts, where the legal system allows the use of controversial conditional fee arrangements in defamation cases.
He added: “I am sad that the First Minister has called into question my professional integrity.
“I act for the most maligned in our society and in so doing fully expect that such a role is disliked and at times misunderstood by others.
“However, for a politician to attack me for the work that I do – and to mistake so seriously my motivation – cannot be left unremarked upon.”
Prof Kelly continued: “Human rights for those imprisoned are not popular. They tell us some things that we do not like to hear – the courts have repeatedly told the Government that it has breached human rights – including some of the most important articles on the European Convention on Human Rights.
“It is a matter of regret that the First Minister appears to lay blame at the door of the law, the judges, the courts and now, finally, the lawyers for taking them forward.
“Mr Salmond, in directing his comments in my direction, fails once again to deal with the issues of principle involved in the matters that I take forward on behalf of clients.
“The continued violation of human rights by the Government will, I hope, still be able to be challenged, or – as with his Justice Secretary’s comments about the Supreme Court – is this Mr Salmond telling me that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’?”
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
The botched defection of Moussa Koussa
[What follows is from an article by David Ignatius published today on the Washington Post website.]
The botched defection several months ago of Musa Kusa, Libya’s former foreign minister, illustrates the uncertain strategy that has plagued the NATO campaign against Col. Moammar Gaddafi. But even so, the Gaddafi regime is feeling enough pressure to send an emissary to Washington this week to explore a possible negotiated settlement.
Kusa, a prominent member of Gaddafi’s inner circle, fled to Britain on March 30. His departure was initially touted as a major blow to the Libyan regime. But new details suggest it was an ill-planned rush job that has backfired. Kusa left Britain in mid-April and is now under wraps in Doha, Qatar. (...)
The Libya standoff is prompting the new interest in a political settlement. Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, sent an emissary who will meet this week with a senior representative of the Obama administration. The message is that Gaddafi will give up power and retreat into the desert, while technocrats in his regime work with the TNC to form a transitional government. Senussi, widely feared in Libya, would apparently also withdraw from power. The US response couldn’t be learned.
The Kusa defection is a classic case of covert confusion. The Libyan official had originally planned to defect to France. A French intelligence officer is said to have contacted him on March 10 during a meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A French intelligence official met him again on March 29 at the Royal Garden Hotel in Djerba, Tunisia, and pitched him about defecting, promising residency, financial help and legal immunity.
The French plan faltered the next morning after Paris demanded that, as part of the deal, Kusa appear publicly with President Nicolas Sarkozy when he arrived in Paris and denounce Gaddafi. Kusa refused, and initiated frantic contacts with MI6 representatives in London about fleeing there. The British first asked for three days to work out details, but when Kusa said he had to leave immediately, MI6 hammered out the basics in several hours, and the Libyan flew to Farnborough Airport, southwest of London.
Kusa’s escape to Britain got off to a bad start. MI6 officers met him at the airport, but his visa paperwork wasn’t ready for several hours. The British weren’t demanding that Kusa publicly renounce Gaddafi, but they weren’t offering him immunity from prosecution, either, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and 1984 shooting of a British policewoman. His debriefing at a safe house on the southern coast was rocky, in part because of the media frenzy about his defection — with Kusa reading tabloid headlines such as the Daily Mail’s description of him as Gaddafi’s “Fingernail-Puller-in-Chief.”
When Kusa’s passport was returned to him in mid-April, he promptly left for Qatar, nominally to attend a meeting of the “contact group” opposing Libya. He hasn’t left Doha since. The defection mishaps have been a “laughingstock” back in Libya and undermined hopes of other recruitments, according to one intelligence source.
The botched defection several months ago of Musa Kusa, Libya’s former foreign minister, illustrates the uncertain strategy that has plagued the NATO campaign against Col. Moammar Gaddafi. But even so, the Gaddafi regime is feeling enough pressure to send an emissary to Washington this week to explore a possible negotiated settlement.
Kusa, a prominent member of Gaddafi’s inner circle, fled to Britain on March 30. His departure was initially touted as a major blow to the Libyan regime. But new details suggest it was an ill-planned rush job that has backfired. Kusa left Britain in mid-April and is now under wraps in Doha, Qatar. (...)
The Libya standoff is prompting the new interest in a political settlement. Gaddafi’s intelligence chief, Abdullah al-Senussi, sent an emissary who will meet this week with a senior representative of the Obama administration. The message is that Gaddafi will give up power and retreat into the desert, while technocrats in his regime work with the TNC to form a transitional government. Senussi, widely feared in Libya, would apparently also withdraw from power. The US response couldn’t be learned.
The Kusa defection is a classic case of covert confusion. The Libyan official had originally planned to defect to France. A French intelligence officer is said to have contacted him on March 10 during a meeting of the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. A French intelligence official met him again on March 29 at the Royal Garden Hotel in Djerba, Tunisia, and pitched him about defecting, promising residency, financial help and legal immunity.
The French plan faltered the next morning after Paris demanded that, as part of the deal, Kusa appear publicly with President Nicolas Sarkozy when he arrived in Paris and denounce Gaddafi. Kusa refused, and initiated frantic contacts with MI6 representatives in London about fleeing there. The British first asked for three days to work out details, but when Kusa said he had to leave immediately, MI6 hammered out the basics in several hours, and the Libyan flew to Farnborough Airport, southwest of London.
Kusa’s escape to Britain got off to a bad start. MI6 officers met him at the airport, but his visa paperwork wasn’t ready for several hours. The British weren’t demanding that Kusa publicly renounce Gaddafi, but they weren’t offering him immunity from prosecution, either, in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing and 1984 shooting of a British policewoman. His debriefing at a safe house on the southern coast was rocky, in part because of the media frenzy about his defection — with Kusa reading tabloid headlines such as the Daily Mail’s description of him as Gaddafi’s “Fingernail-Puller-in-Chief.”
When Kusa’s passport was returned to him in mid-April, he promptly left for Qatar, nominally to attend a meeting of the “contact group” opposing Libya. He hasn’t left Doha since. The defection mishaps have been a “laughingstock” back in Libya and undermined hopes of other recruitments, according to one intelligence source.
Why Mrs Angiolini did not deserve a damehood
[This is the headline over an article published today on the Scottish Review website by the editor, Kenneth Roy. It reads in part:]
Although it is tempting to dismiss the honours list as the ultimate exercise of human vanity – tempting because it so obviously is – the disposition of gongs at the top of the school tells us a great deal of interest about prevailing values and trends. (...)
D is for damehood. A d was awarded last weekend to the recently retired lord advocate Elish Angiolini for her 'services to the administration of justice in Scotland'. The constituency which this appointment is likely to offend includes many with a particular interest in the administration of justice in Scotland (...)
Mrs Angiolini appeals to the media because of her impeccable roots and her common touch. She is the sort of law officer who makes a great fuss of saying that some criminals should be locked up for life. The prosecution of the Sheridans – Tommy going down, Gail saved from Cornton Vale at the last minute – probably did her no harm, either. But it was her handling of the Megrahi case which earned her the greatest respect from the popular press and, perhaps, the public at large.
Her refusal to admit the possibility that a miscarriage of justice had occurred – even as the evidence piled up that an innocent man might have been sent to Greenock prison – confirmed for her media fans the stereotype of the don't-mess-with-me daughter of a Govan coal merchant, who had fought her way to the top and wasn't standing for any nonsense; far less any nuance.
In overlooked truth, it was a debacle on a grander scale than the World's End. It was epic. For one reason or another, important evidence helpful to Megrahi was not available at the trial, just as important evidence helpful to Nat Fraser was not produced at his. The appeal process dragged on, so tortuously slowly that, inevitably, suspicions were aroused that the Crown Office was employing those well-known techniques of any establishment in a tight spot, obfuscation and delaying tactics.
But again Elish Angiolini walked away with barely a mark. If anyone took the flak for the Megrahi fiasco it was the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, whose release of the 'Lockerbie bomber' in August 2009 provoked howls of outrage (though not from this magazine). The Crown Office, meanwhile, having dragged its heels for so long, was able to blame Megrahi for abandoning a second appeal. Perfect.
Although it is tempting to dismiss the honours list as the ultimate exercise of human vanity – tempting because it so obviously is – the disposition of gongs at the top of the school tells us a great deal of interest about prevailing values and trends. (...)
D is for damehood. A d was awarded last weekend to the recently retired lord advocate Elish Angiolini for her 'services to the administration of justice in Scotland'. The constituency which this appointment is likely to offend includes many with a particular interest in the administration of justice in Scotland (...)
Mrs Angiolini appeals to the media because of her impeccable roots and her common touch. She is the sort of law officer who makes a great fuss of saying that some criminals should be locked up for life. The prosecution of the Sheridans – Tommy going down, Gail saved from Cornton Vale at the last minute – probably did her no harm, either. But it was her handling of the Megrahi case which earned her the greatest respect from the popular press and, perhaps, the public at large.
Her refusal to admit the possibility that a miscarriage of justice had occurred – even as the evidence piled up that an innocent man might have been sent to Greenock prison – confirmed for her media fans the stereotype of the don't-mess-with-me daughter of a Govan coal merchant, who had fought her way to the top and wasn't standing for any nonsense; far less any nuance.
In overlooked truth, it was a debacle on a grander scale than the World's End. It was epic. For one reason or another, important evidence helpful to Megrahi was not available at the trial, just as important evidence helpful to Nat Fraser was not produced at his. The appeal process dragged on, so tortuously slowly that, inevitably, suspicions were aroused that the Crown Office was employing those well-known techniques of any establishment in a tight spot, obfuscation and delaying tactics.
But again Elish Angiolini walked away with barely a mark. If anyone took the flak for the Megrahi fiasco it was the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill, whose release of the 'Lockerbie bomber' in August 2009 provoked howls of outrage (though not from this magazine). The Crown Office, meanwhile, having dragged its heels for so long, was able to blame Megrahi for abandoning a second appeal. Perfect.
Doubts over new Lockerbie trial
[This is the headline over a brief report in today's edition of The Independent. It reads as follows:]
Experts cast doubt on claims yesterday that the Libyan airline employee cleared of the Lockerbie bombing could stand trial under double jeopardy laws.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was found not guilty of assisting his friend and colleague Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in planting the bomb on board Pan AM flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives.
Families of those who died had said they hoped that a new prosecution could shine fresh light on the case following the original trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
But Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the legal process which led to the conviction of Megrahi, said it was highly unlikely that a new unit set up to examine unsolved cases under Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, would go ahead with a prosecution.
[Two interesting blog posts have emerged following the Aljazeera documentary (which can be watched on You Tube here). The first, Al Jazeera on Al Megrahi..., is on bensix's Back towards the locus and the second, Two secondary suitcases?, on Caustic Logic's The Lockerbie divide.
I am delighted to see that my second home, South Africa, has now notched up 1000 unique visitors on Flag Counter. Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika!]
Experts cast doubt on claims yesterday that the Libyan airline employee cleared of the Lockerbie bombing could stand trial under double jeopardy laws.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah was found not guilty of assisting his friend and colleague Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in planting the bomb on board Pan AM flight 103 in 1988 that claimed 270 lives.
Families of those who died had said they hoped that a new prosecution could shine fresh light on the case following the original trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in 2001.
But Professor Robert Black QC, the architect of the legal process which led to the conviction of Megrahi, said it was highly unlikely that a new unit set up to examine unsolved cases under Scottish Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, would go ahead with a prosecution.
[Two interesting blog posts have emerged following the Aljazeera documentary (which can be watched on You Tube here). The first, Al Jazeera on Al Megrahi..., is on bensix's Back towards the locus and the second, Two secondary suitcases?, on Caustic Logic's The Lockerbie divide.
I am delighted to see that my second home, South Africa, has now notched up 1000 unique visitors on Flag Counter. Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika!]
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
Libyan cleared over Lockerbie may be retried under double jeopardy
[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of The Scotsman. It reads in part:]
Families of Lockerbie bombing victims hope an attempt by prosecutors to put Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's co- accused on trial again will shed new light on the atrocity.
The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double-jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, 55, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was acquitted of 270 counts of murder in 2001 after the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Victims' families are split on whether he or Megrahi, 59, who was convicted but released in 2009 on compassionate grounds, were behind the terror plot, but all want to see further investigations.
Jean Berkley, 80, from Northumberland, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son, Alistair, 29, in the bombing, said: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.
"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in.
"Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty.
"However, we're glad to see anything that keeps Lockerbie in the public eye. There are too many questions that remain. Our aim is to get more of the truth."
The Rev John Mosey, from Cumbria, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah. However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here."
Susan Cohen, 73, from New Jersey in the United States, whose daughter Theo, 20, died in the attack, is convinced of Megrahi's guilt and would welcome a new prosecution. She said: "I think that's fine if they can do it and have the evidence to do it, although I can't say I have much faith in the Scottish legal system after Megrahi was released.
"If you look at Wikileaks, for example, there's no sign that Libya did not do it - that Megrahi was framed."
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, who was promoted to the role of Scotland's chief prosecutor after last month's elections, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at failed prosecutions. (...)
However, Fhimah is the unit's top priority.
Mr Mulholland has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, and is keen to speak to former Libyan justice minister Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, who has claimed to have evidence linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.
But Mrs Cohen said she hoped Gaddafi would be killed, rather than face trial.
"As far as I'm concerned, any prosecution of Gaddafi would go before the international court," she said. "That's very slow. My preferred solution is that Gaddafi is killed - he is dangerous, he will kill again. He is the worst sort of tyrant and terrorist."
A Crown Office spokesman said: "As the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 remains live, and in order to preserve the integrity of that investigation, it would not be appropriate at this time to offer any further comment or the detail of ongoing inquiries.
"The Solicitor General, Lesley Thomson, has been asked by the Lord Advocate to review and prioritise cases which may be prosecuted anew under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. It is too early to say which cases would be considered."
[There will be no re-trial of Lamin Fhimah or any trial of Colonel Gaddafi for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The Crown Office is perfectly well aware that the evidence simply does not exist to make a conviction a realistic prospect; and that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist was a travesty perpetrated by a credulous court which has long since been exposed, by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst many others.
A news item on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm referring to The Scotsman report and my comments in the foregoing paragraph can be read here.
For the next six days, which include the South African Youth Day public holiday, Gannaga Lodge must take priority over servicing of this blog.]
Families of Lockerbie bombing victims hope an attempt by prosecutors to put Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's co- accused on trial again will shed new light on the atrocity.
The Crown Office is examining new evidence to establish whether it is strong enough to invoke the new double-jeopardy law, which allows prosecutors to try someone twice for the same offence.
Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, 55, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, was acquitted of 270 counts of murder in 2001 after the trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands.
Victims' families are split on whether he or Megrahi, 59, who was convicted but released in 2009 on compassionate grounds, were behind the terror plot, but all want to see further investigations.
Jean Berkley, 80, from Northumberland, co-ordinator of the UK Families Flight 103 group, who lost her son, Alistair, 29, in the bombing, said: "We've always been told the investigation remains open, but it never occurred to us they would be coming back for Fhimah.
"Anything that sheds any light we would be interested in.
"Our concern has been that we were unconvinced by the trial or that the evidence was sufficient to find Megrahi guilty.
"However, we're glad to see anything that keeps Lockerbie in the public eye. There are too many questions that remain. Our aim is to get more of the truth."
The Rev John Mosey, from Cumbria, whose 19-year-old daughter Helga was killed, said: "Having sat through the trial, the first appeal and the second appeal - until it was aborted - I am 95 per cent certain that Megrahi was innocent. There was even less evidence against Fhimah. However, the more they look at it, the more possibility they will see that there's something very, very wrong here."
Susan Cohen, 73, from New Jersey in the United States, whose daughter Theo, 20, died in the attack, is convinced of Megrahi's guilt and would welcome a new prosecution. She said: "I think that's fine if they can do it and have the evidence to do it, although I can't say I have much faith in the Scottish legal system after Megrahi was released.
"If you look at Wikileaks, for example, there's no sign that Libya did not do it - that Megrahi was framed."
Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland, who was promoted to the role of Scotland's chief prosecutor after last month's elections, has set up a double-jeopardy unit to look at failed prosecutions. (...)
However, Fhimah is the unit's top priority.
Mr Mulholland has also said he would be willing to launch a prosecution against Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, and is keen to speak to former Libyan justice minister Mustafa Mohammed Abdul Jalil, who has claimed to have evidence linking Gaddafi to Lockerbie.
But Mrs Cohen said she hoped Gaddafi would be killed, rather than face trial.
"As far as I'm concerned, any prosecution of Gaddafi would go before the international court," she said. "That's very slow. My preferred solution is that Gaddafi is killed - he is dangerous, he will kill again. He is the worst sort of tyrant and terrorist."
A Crown Office spokesman said: "As the investigation into the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 remains live, and in order to preserve the integrity of that investigation, it would not be appropriate at this time to offer any further comment or the detail of ongoing inquiries.
"The Solicitor General, Lesley Thomson, has been asked by the Lord Advocate to review and prioritise cases which may be prosecuted anew under the Double Jeopardy (Scotland) Bill. It is too early to say which cases would be considered."
[There will be no re-trial of Lamin Fhimah or any trial of Colonel Gaddafi for the bombing of Pan Am 103. The Crown Office is perfectly well aware that the evidence simply does not exist to make a conviction a realistic prospect; and that the conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi on the evidence led at Zeist was a travesty perpetrated by a credulous court which has long since been exposed, by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission amongst many others.
A news item on the website of the Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm referring to The Scotsman report and my comments in the foregoing paragraph can be read here.
For the next six days, which include the South African Youth Day public holiday, Gannaga Lodge must take priority over servicing of this blog.]
Monday, 13 June 2011
Bribery at the heart of Megrahi's Lockerbie conviction?
[This is the headline over an item published today on Jon Snow's blog on the Channel 4 News website. It reads as follows:]
While Libya continues to burn, an eerie silence has descended over the British media’s interest in reopening the uncertainties surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. The occasional defecting Libyan minister has pretended to hold previously untold secrets, but nothing has come of them.
It was left to Al Jazeera English to try to lance the boil last Thursday when the channel broadcast an explosive documentary on the subject. The programme makers had gained access to the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the case.
Even more importantly, they managed to see the notebooks and diaries of the Scottish and American investigators written at the time. These were also in the possession of the Review Commission.
In short, the diaries make a blistering allegation – that the central Maltese witness whose testimony was key to convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – had been bribed. The diaries record the apparent “offer of inducements made to Tony Gauci”, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified clothes that were found in the suitcase that carried the bomb on the plane, as having been bought at his shop by al-Megrahi.
Tony Gauci’s brother, Paul, it is claimed, in the same diaries as having “a clear desire to gain financial benefit”. The Review Commissions’ own report states that after the trial Tony Gauci was paid $2 million, and that brother Paul got $1 million reward money.
If true, these would be completely dynamite revelations. Of course, they would have come out in the appeal that Megrahi’s release prevented happening. It is inconceivable that this Scottish Review Commission’s report would not have surfaced at such an appeal. Does this perhaps explain why he was eventually bundled so speedily out of the country?
But the other question remains… why was it left to Al Jazeera to make these allegations?
[The questions posed in the last two sentences are highly pertinent. Here are two more: Can the Scottish Government continue, in good conscience, to deny an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction? Can it continue to assert, without becoming a laughing stock, that it is satisfied that Megrahi's conviction is sound?]
While Libya continues to burn, an eerie silence has descended over the British media’s interest in reopening the uncertainties surrounding the Lockerbie bombing. The occasional defecting Libyan minister has pretended to hold previously untold secrets, but nothing has come of them.
It was left to Al Jazeera English to try to lance the boil last Thursday when the channel broadcast an explosive documentary on the subject. The programme makers had gained access to the unpublished report of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission into the case.
Even more importantly, they managed to see the notebooks and diaries of the Scottish and American investigators written at the time. These were also in the possession of the Review Commission.
In short, the diaries make a blistering allegation – that the central Maltese witness whose testimony was key to convicting Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – had been bribed. The diaries record the apparent “offer of inducements made to Tony Gauci”, the Maltese shopkeeper who identified clothes that were found in the suitcase that carried the bomb on the plane, as having been bought at his shop by al-Megrahi.
Tony Gauci’s brother, Paul, it is claimed, in the same diaries as having “a clear desire to gain financial benefit”. The Review Commissions’ own report states that after the trial Tony Gauci was paid $2 million, and that brother Paul got $1 million reward money.
If true, these would be completely dynamite revelations. Of course, they would have come out in the appeal that Megrahi’s release prevented happening. It is inconceivable that this Scottish Review Commission’s report would not have surfaced at such an appeal. Does this perhaps explain why he was eventually bundled so speedily out of the country?
But the other question remains… why was it left to Al Jazeera to make these allegations?
[The questions posed in the last two sentences are highly pertinent. Here are two more: Can the Scottish Government continue, in good conscience, to deny an independent inquiry into the Megrahi conviction? Can it continue to assert, without becoming a laughing stock, that it is satisfied that Megrahi's conviction is sound?]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)