For truth’s sake, we fight on to clear al-Megrahi’s name

[This is the headline over an article by Dr Jim Swire that appears today on the website of The Times (behind the paywall).  It reads as follows:] 

Even on the brink of death, al-Megrahi tried to help me discover who really killed my daughter

I first saw Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on the morning of May 1, 2000. He was below us in the well of the specially convened court at Kamp Zeist, Holland. Close to us, to one side of the public gallery, sat his wife Aisha and his family.

Through the bulletproof glass Baset seemed timid in the dock, never venturing to speak out for himself. Later we learnt that his defence team had told him to let them do the talking.

We were totally unprepared for the comment from another observer in the gallery: “How could you sit so near to the filth?” he said. This profound presumption of guilt was unencumbered by the inconvenience of having to prove it. Hatred has festered for some, and contributed to the blinding of many ever since.

Separation from his family was the cruellest consequence of Baset’s conviction. He loved them dearly, as they did him. Aisha was almost always present whenever I met her husband once he was out of prison and on licence in Tripoli, though unlike him, she had no English. Her demeanour revealed her love for him and her trust towards me, an outsider, who had seen through the miscarriage of justice. Only near the very end did she leave us alone together, holding hands, for speech was difficult.

When I first met Baset in Greenock Prison, he was calm but determined to clear his name. He must have known that we had campaigned for years to have him tried under Scots law. Yet there was not a word of complaint, though his cancer, already giving him pain on sitting, was then in evidence. A devout Muslim, he had a Christmas card from the prison shop ready for me. On it he had written “Dr Swire and family, please pray for me and my family”. I treasure it still.

At least before he died we learnt what he already knew: that the story that a Libyan bomb using a long-running timer had started its journey from Malta was a myth. The famed fragment “PT35b” could never have been part of one of the timers allegedly used. There is now no valid evidence left from the court that either Malta, its flag carrier airline or Baset’s own country were involved. Baset has a valid alibi and he died knowing that in the end the truth will emerge.

On release from prison, his valedictory letter made clear that he attached no blame to the Scottish people for what had happened to him. This, from a man wrongly segregated from his family for years, and in the grip of a terrible disease, tells us much about the nature of Baset al-Megrahi. No one can be sure how much the stress of his terrible predicament affected his immune system and contributed to the spread of his fatal disease.

Later, when I met him in Tripoli, he was concerned that I as a victim’s father should get access, on his death, to all the information that had been amassed to fight his abandoned appeal. He knew that I still grieved for my daughter and sought the truth as to who had really murdered her. On the brink of his own death, he found the spirit to empathise with me. That was a measure of this man.

It is a tragedy that we have failed to overturn the verdict while he was alive. But we must clear his name posthumously for the sake of truth and for the future peace of his family. If we do nothing then a great evil will have triumphed.

There are people in Britain and America who, blinding themselves to the profound failure of the evidence against Baset, have tried deliberately to suppress the truth, and even to deny that Baset was mortally sick. Some of them have clearly done so knowing what they were doing. One can only pray for them.

Others, understandably consumed by hatred against a man they genuinely believed had murdered their relatives, advocated the withholding of treatment, even of painkillers so that he might die as quickly as possible and in the utmost agony. Such personal reactions are profoundly destructive to those who hold them. Unwittingly they have allowed themselves to become victims of the very terrorism which they rightly loathe; as such they will need help when the truth does come out. Therein will lie a number of individual further tragedies.

[There is extensive coverage today in the UK media of the death of Abdelbaset Megrahi and its implications.  The Scotsman publishes a number of articles, including one headlined Megrahi death: 23 years of legal twists and turns but questions remain. The Herald’s coverage includes an article headlined Megrahi dead but questions live on and another headlined What's next: a new push for justice for Megrahi?  The Times carries (behind the paywall) a report headed Fresh calls to uncover full truth on Lockerbie. The Guardian’s main article is headlined New Lockerbie inquiry rejected by PM as Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dies and includes a few paragraphs on the Justice for Megrahi statement. Another article in The Guardian is headlined Mystery of Lockerbie plane bombing may never be solved and continues with two subheadings: 1. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi had always protested his innocence; 2. Claims of flaws in conviction for Lockerbie plane bombing]

A statement by Justice for Megrahi on the death of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi has now died without having been able to clear his name of the destruction of Pan Am flight 103 on the 21st of December 1988 during his lifetime. Now all those politicians and Megrahi-guilt apologists who regard compassion as being a weakling's alternative to vengeance, who boast of their skills at remote medical diagnosis, and who persistently refuse to address the uncomfortable facts of the case, will doubtless fall silent. Finally, the ‘evil terrorist’ has been called to account for himself before a “Higher Power”.

The prosecution case against him held water like a sieve. We are expected to believe the fantastic tale of the Luqa-Frankfurt-Heathrow transfer of an invisible, unaccompanied suitcase which miraculously found itself situated in the perfect position in the hold of 103 to create maximum destructive effect having eluded no fewer than three separate security regimes. There is no evidence for any such luggage ever having left the ground in either Malta or Germany, it is mere surmise. Not only that but we have accusations of the key Crown witness having been bribed for testimony; a multitude of serious question marks over material evidence, including the very real possibility of the crucial fragment of PCB having been fabricated; discredited forensic scientists testifying for the prosecution; Crown witness testimony being retracted after the trial and, most worryingly, allegations of the Crown’s non-disclosure of evidence which could have been key to the defence. Added to which, evidence supporting the alternative and infinitely more logical ingestion of the bomb directly at Heathrow was either dismissed at the trial or withheld from the court until after the verdict of guilty had been returned.

The judges were under immense pressure to bring in a verdict of guilty. Zeist was the most high profile trial that the Scottish High Court of Justiciary had ever presided over. There was massive international interest, and this was compounded by the fact that the judges played the dual roles of judge and jury in a case in which the indictments were brought by the same official body that had appointed them as judges in the first instance, the Lord Advocate. Anyone hoping, therefore, to discover an application of sound, empirical reasoning based on concrete evidence being exercised in the field of jurisprudence would do well to avoid the Zeist judgement. Indeed, the most exceptional of Zeist’s many exceptional features is the judgement. Anyone reading this extraordinary document could be forgiven for thinking that in Scotland there is a presumption of guilt and the burden of proof is on the defence. In the words of Professor Hans Köchler (UN appointed International Observer at the Kamp van Zeist Trial) commenting on the second appeal: “[it] bears the hallmarks of an intelligence operation.”

The Crown and successive governments have, for years, acted to obstruct any attempts to investigate how the conviction of Mr al-Megrahi came about. Some in the legal and political establishments may well be breathing a sigh of relief now that Mr al-Megrahi has died. This would be a mistake. Many unfortunates who fell foul of outrageous miscarriages of justice in the past have had their names cleared posthumously. The great and the good of western civilisation who have clamoured for Mr al-Megrahi’s blood of late may find it a salutary experience to reflect on the case of Derek Bentley: convicted and hanged in 1953, aged nineteen, for a crime for which in 1998 he was acquitted on his posthumous appeal. However long it takes, the campaign seeking to have Mr al-Megrahi’s conviction quashed will continue unabated not only in his name and that of his family, who must still bear the stigma of being related to the ‘Lockerbie Bomber’, but, above all, it will carry on in the name of justice. A justice which is still being sought by and denied to many of the bereaved resultant from the Lockerbie tragedy.

It took almost half a century to resolve the Bentley case. With the Zeist justice campaign now in its twelfth year, one has to ask, when faced with such intransigence, precisely whom the democratically elected, executive arm of state represents. Historically, all the major parties, both in Holyrood and Westminster, must shoulder equal responsibility. However, since first coming to power in 2007, the SNP government has actively taken measures which hinder any progress towards lifting the fog that lies over events, much to the dismay of its own party supporters and activists who take an interest in the case. In 2009, a statutory instrument which was supposed to remove the legislative prohibition on publication of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission’s statement of reasons for the second appeal (a document that cost tax payers in excess of £1,000,000 to produce) was so drafted as to render publication effectively impossible. In 2010, the government also fired new legislation through parliament (‘Cadder’ Section7) that makes any prospect of opening another appeal in the interests of justice a forlorn hope. Even today, ignoring the fact that, with the support of the Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee, campaigners finally forced the government to admit that it does in law (under the Inquiries Act of 2005) have the power to open an inquiry into the case, the government persists in sending out correspondence claiming that it doesn’t; this, of course, is accompanied by the hackneyed old mantra of their not doubting the safety of the conviction. Furthermore, during the consultation period of the Criminal Cases (Punishment and Review) (Scotland) Bill, campaigners established that the Data Protection Act posed no legal obstacle to the publication of the SCCRC’s statement of reasons for the second appeal, however, the government maintained otherwise with the result that it was ultimately left to the courage and commitment of members of the journalistic community to test the government’s position to destruction. All of the aforementioned, and the regrettable habit of appointing Crown Office insiders to the position of Lord Advocate, are not reassuring signs that this matter is being treated with a sense of balance and objectivity by the authorities. The record has stuck. The longer this goes on, the more the doubts over the government’s true loyalties will increase.

This case has now become emblematic of an issue which affects each and every one of us and poses some profoundly basic questions which we ignore at our peril, namely: what do we perceive justice to be, what role ought it to play in our society and whom should it exist to serve? Our laws and how we apply them to our society are the most fundamental descriptor of how we function as a cohesive and coherent entity. They are effectively a portrait of our identity as a people. If, through complacency, we permit cosy, established authority to dictate the terms and to brush under the carpet concerns over how justice is defined and dispensed for the sake of convenience, expediency and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

The Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, says that “Scotland's Criminal Justice system is a cornerstone of our society, and it is paramount that there is total public confidence in it.” Scotland’s independent and professional arbiter in the matter of referrals to the Court of Appeal, the SCCRC, believe that, on no fewer than six grounds, Mr al-Megrahi may have suffered a miscarriage of justice at Zeist. Whether or not the courts are the right and proper platform to deal with this case, the conviction has been in the hands of the High Court of Justiciary since 2001 producing no resolution whatsoever and, moreover, how amenable are the courts now likely to be towards sanctioning another appeal given that they have been invested with new powers which allow them to reject applications which question their own judgements? Fine words are not enough. Action is required. After all, the government took executive action to release Mr al-Megrahi following the dropping of his appeal (something he was under no legal obligation to do). 52% of respondents to an opinion poll conducted by a major Scottish national newspaper supported the call for an independent inquiry into the case. Over a two week period, and with minimal publicity, 1,646 individuals put their names to a petition for an inquiry, which still remains open before the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee. If Scotland wishes to see its criminal justice system reinstated to the position of respect that it once held rather than its languishing as the mangled wreck it has become because of this perverse judgement, it is imperative that its government act by endorsing an independent inquiry into this entire affair. As a nation which aspires to independence, Scotland must have the courage to look itself in the mirror.

Signed:

Ms Kate Adie (Former Chief News Correspondent for BBC News).

Mr John Ashton (Author of ‘Megrahi: You are my Jury’ and co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Mr David Benson (Actor/author of the play ‘Lockerbie: Unfinished Business’).

Mrs Jean Berkley (Mother of Alistair Berkley: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Peter Biddulph (Lockerbie tragedy researcher).

Mr Benedict Birnberg (Retired senior partner of Birnberg Peirce & Partners).

Professor Robert Black QC (‘Architect’ of the Kamp van Zeist Trial).

Mr Paul Bull (Close friend of Bill Cadman: killed on Pan Am 103).

Professor Noam Chomsky (Human rights, social and political commentator).

Mr Tam Dalyell (UK MP: 1962-2005. Father of the House: 2001-2005).

Mr Ian Ferguson (Co-author of ‘Cover Up of Convenience’).

Dr David Fieldhouse (Police surgeon present at the Pan Am 103 crash site).

Mr Robert Forrester (Secretary of Justice for Megrahi).

Ms Christine Grahame MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament).

Mr Ian Hamilton QC (Advocate, author and former university rector).

Mr Ian Hislop (Editor of ‘Private Eye’).

Fr Pat Keegans (Lockerbie parish priest on 21^st December 1988).

Ms A L Kennedy (Author).

Dr Morag Kerr (Secretary Depute of Justice for Megrahi).

Mr Andrew Killgore (Former US Ambassador to Qatar).

Mr Moses Kungu (Lockerbie councillor on the 21^st of December 1988).

Mr Adam Larson (Editor and proprietor of ‘The Lockerbie Divide’).

Mr Aonghas MacNeacail (Poet and journalist).

Mr Eddie McDaid (Lockerbie commentator).

Mr Rik McHarg (Communications hub coordinator: Lockerbie crash sites).

Mr Iain McKie (Retired Superintendent of Police).

Mr Marcello Mega (Journalist covering the Lockerbie incident).

Ms Heather Mills (Reporter for ‘Private Eye’).

Rev’d John F Mosey (Father of Helga Mosey: victim of Pan Am 103).

Mr Len Murray (Retired solicitor).

Cardinal Keith O’Brien (Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh and Cardinal in the Roman Catholic Church).

Mr Denis Phipps (Aviation security expert).

Mr John Pilger (Campaigning human rights journalist).

Mr Steven Raeburn (Editor of ‘The Firm’).

Dr Tessa Ransford OBE  (Poetry Practitioner and Adviser).

Mr James Robertson (Author).

Mr Kenneth Roy (Editor of ‘The Scottish Review’).

Dr David Stevenson (Retired medical specialist and Lockerbie commentator).

Dr Jim Swire (Father of Flora Swire: victim of Pan Am 103).

Sir Teddy Taylor (UK MP: 1964-2005. Former Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland).

Archbishop Desmond Tutu (Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Mr Terry Waite CBE (Former envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury and hostage negotiator).

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi (01/04/1952 - 20/05/2012)

[The BBC News website reports that Abdelbaset Megrahi has died.  The BBC’s obituary can be read here. On the occasion of Megrahi’s repatriation, Eddie MacKechnie, his Scottish solicitor at the time of his application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission issued the following statement:]

I am very pleased that Baset has gone home to his wife, family and friends. I strongly believe both Lamin, my original client, and Baset are entirely innocent and thus victims.

To me Baset is a hero and deserved any hint of a hero's welcome he was allowed. He went with Lamin to Holland over 10 years ago expecting justice and never got it. He took the risk for his country and he was welcomed as a hero of his people not because he was ever a terrorist but because he is a son of Libya who suffered for her.

Of course I am sad he abandoned his Appeal he fought so very hard to obtain but I know he had no choice. Politics long usurped any role justice had to play.

The Justice Minister was right to release Baset. It was a decent decision. It was to be expected that as Minister he would support the conviction and laud the Judiciary, Prosecution and Police. It was striking he did not mention another Scottish, statutory body. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission. Had he forgotten their findings in favour of Baset and a new Appeal?

The inconvenient truth of this shocking case is that all is far from well within the Scottish legal system and sick to the core in scheming Whitehall. Pressurising a dying man, so desperate to return home, into dropping his legitimate appeal was beneath contempt but at least consistent. To suggest there was no such pressure is preposterous.


[An article by BBC News's Scotland correspondent James Cook headlined Lockerbie questions remain following Megrahi's death can be read here.  A further article by the same correspondent headlined Megrahi dies protesting Lockerbie bombing innocence can be read here. Reactions to the news from politicians and Lockerbie relatives can be found here on the heraldscotland.com website. Megrahi's biographer, John Ashton, has published an obituary on his Megrahi: You are my Jury website.]

Libyans turn on Lockerbie bomber

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Sunday Express.  It reads in part:]

The Lockerbie bomber has become a "pariah" in Libya as the public and politicians turn against him as an "embarrassing" reminder of the crimes of Colonel Gaddafi.

Author Lindsey Hilsom, who spent decades reporting from the country as a foreign correspondent, said Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi is "not very popular" with ordinary Libyans.

Even members of Megrahi's tribe, the one-million strong Megraha, are said to have turned their backs on him and his links with the hated Muammar Gaddafi. 

The dying former secret agent is also coming under increasing pressure from the new authorities to give evidence against more senior figures in the tyrant's regime.

Gaddafi's spy chief and Megrahi's cousin Abdullah al-Senussi, who has been under arrest in Mauritania since March, is the number one target of the new Libyan government. (...) 

Ms Hilsom, whose new book Sandstorm chronicles Gaddafi's brutal rule, said: "There is a fight over Senussi; the ICC want him, the French want him and the Libyans want him for a prison massacre in 1996, so the more evidence they can find the happier they will be. 

"Megrahi is in an extremely difficult position. The interim government would like the Lockerbie issue to be resolved for once and all, so he is under pressure to provide evidence about who higher up than him was involved."

If Megrahi were to give evidence against his relative, who recruited him to Libya's secret service in the 1980s, he would be likely to contradict his own version of events.

He has always maintained he was wrongfully convicted of the murders of 270 people, before being released with terminal prostate cancer in 2009.

Megrahi, who published a book [Megrahi:]You are my Jury earlier this year, says that Iran ordered the bombing in retaliation for the USA shooting down a passenger jet. [RB: the author of the book is John Ashton, not Abdelbaset Megrahi; and Megrahi (who is extensively quoted in it) makes no such claim about Iranian responsibility.]

Ms Hilsom, who spent months covering the uprising last year and visited Megrahi's home in Tripoli, added that he was no longer treated as a "hero" by ordinary people.

She said: "He represents in some ways the crimes of the Gaddafi regime and he wants to stay out of the public eye because he is not very popular. 

"People are very ashamed of what Gaddafi did in the world, including Lockerbie. Libyans feel that Gaddafi was an embarrasment and they see Megrahi and the whole Lockerbie thing as part of that.

"He is seen as a pariah, an embarrasment from the previous regime." 

She added: "Like everybody else in Libya, last year would have been very difficult for him. For months, you couldn't just drive across town to get your medicine, for example.

"Megrahi was an apparatchik of Gaddafi, he was one of Gaddafi's men so after he was toppled his family expressed some fear that they would be treated badly by the new authorities.

"However, I've seen no evidence they have been treated badly. He seems to be able to get the treatment he needs and is still living a reasonable life in Tripoli." 


[The following comment from Peter Biddulph appears beneath the article on the Express website:]


Ben Borland refers to the recent publication of a book "You are my Jury".

What he fails to mention is that the book gives a factual account of laboratory experiments conducted by two top metallurgists, including one at Sheffield's Hallam university, which prove conclusively that a fragment of a timer board said to have been found at Lockerbie could not have come from a batch sold to Libya.

The experiments completely destroy the prosecution case against Al-Megrahi. 

There are indications, too, that the fragment found at Lockerbie was a fake, introduced into an evidence bag so as to turn the investigation away from Iran, to one which would accuse Libya of the bombing. 

The information is there. Ben Borland should study it. Lord David Steel has looked at the evidence and in a TV interview just days ago on Scottish TV said that the verdict against Al-Megrahi was "highly unsatisfactory". 

Ben, you are welcome to contact us and see it for yourself. Google my name and the links will come up.

Private Eye on the on-going Lockerbie investigation

[This is the headline over an item posted today on John Ashton’s Megrahi: You are my Jury website.  It reads as follows:]


The following brief article appears in the current issue of Private Eye. My [ie John Ashton’s] comments follow.


Disappointment among the relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie atrocity: Ed Miliband is not blocking [sic; presumably “backing” is what is meant] their call for a public inquiry following the release “on compassionate grounds” of Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi in 2009.

The Labour leader has written to Pam Dix, whose brother was one of the 270 who died when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the skies in December 1988, saying that while criminal investigations continue “nothing should be done to undermine them”.

Miliband must be aware that the Levenson inquiry is doing an extraordinary job unearthing material that may aid a now very active criminal investigation, where hacks, police and a member of the armed forces have all been arrested. But how “active” is the Lockerbie investigation?

The Scottish Crown Office told the Eye that six legal staff “have been involved and continue to be involved”. But when asked whether anyone who had spoken to the two forensic experts who have cast doubt on the scientific evidence used to incriminate Megrahi, a spokeswoman said: “As the investigation remains live, it would not be appropriate to offer further comment.” In other words, er, no.

Miliband appears to be adopting the same position towards the UK’s biggest terrorist mass murder as the rest of the political establishment.

The fact that the Lockerbie investigation remains open was, of course, recently underlined by the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland’s visit to Tripoli with FBI director Robert Mueller.   Back in December, Mulholland said: “I think I would be failing in my duty if I didn’t properly seek to take advantage of the opportunity that has opened up with the fall of Gaddafi.” However, it seems that he does not regard it as a failure of duty to ignore the two scientists (Dr Jess Cawley and Dr Chris McArdle), whose work demonstrates that the circuit board fragment, PT/35b, could not have been from one of the 20 timers supplied to Libya by the Swiss firm Mebo. This new evidence destroys the case against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, yet the Crown is acting like nothing has happened.

1000 days of shame

[What follows is the text of a letter submitted by Dr Jim Swire to The Herald two days ago, but not (yet) published:]

On 27th February this year a book was launched by Edinburgh publisher Birlinn called Megrahi: You are my Jury.

Earlier that very morning, just before the actual launch, 10 Downing Street, which could not have seen the book, issued a statement saying the book was an insult to the [Lockerbie] relatives. I was in Edinburgh reading the 'insult' for myself. Do read pages 355-362 in particular. Just who was insulted by whom?

No 10's statement was self evidently made in ignorance of the book's contents. Among many other issues raised, the book shows for all who will look, that there is responsible and repeatable scientific evidence that a fragment of circuit board designated as 'PT35b' at trial and found within a Scottish police evidence bag could not after all have been a piece of a Libyan owned bomb timer mechanism as the court believed.

There are of course many other reasons for doubting the safety of the Scottish verdict against Megrahi, but of this one tiny fragment even the US FBI's Edward Marshman, deeply involved, along with the Dumfries and Galloway police in assembling evidence for the Zeist court has said publicly that he believes that without this fragment the case could not have been brought to trial.

It is indeed a thousand days since Mr Megrahi was released from Greenock under a provision for compassion for sick prisoners which has become available within our Scottish legal system. I am not a Catholic, but like Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of that Church in Scotland I believe we should be proud of that provision in our law. In a letter to your paper on 9th August 2010, I wrote:

'It is as the Cardinal says: there is a 'clash of cultures'[between the US and Scotland] and like him I want to live in a culture capable of compassion. I believe that the Church of Scotland also supported compassionate release of Mr Megrahi.'

However our First Minister, as well as Kenny MacAskill have both repeatedly claimed during the 1000 days since his release that they see no reason to doubt the Zeist verdict against Mr Megrahi. The Holyrood Parliament heatedly discussed the release, stalked by an elephant they could not see: on its flank, the words was he guilty or not?' Perhaps it was the animal's trunk which nearly brought down the roof of the debating chamber, since it had already been stalkng them for so many years.

I think we can no longer tolerate ignorance about this terrible case. Currently we do not even know, because we have not investigated it, how it was that a piece of circuit board, so important that even the FBI say the case could not have run without it came to be found inside a Scottish police evidence bag, the label for which had also been illegally changed.

Let me say to you, Mr Cameron, through this gallant newspaper that the book Megrahi: You are my Jury is not an insult to this British relative of one of the dead, indeed the book should be read by you, your staff and all your legal advisers. Amongst much else, it tells us that a fragment of circuit board on which, even according to the Americans the whole trial depended, could not have originated from a Libyan timer. Feel free to get the scientific proof of this repeated. Do please go and ask all your Government Departments to release for public inspection all documents relevant to this case which have been made subject of 'PII certificates' over the years. The last time I wrote to you directly, on 29th February 2012 all I got was a reply from the Foreign Office dated 4th May 2012: was that perchance an insult to a relative? But you are of course a very busy and honourable man.

Meanwhile Mr Salmond please launch an inquiry into how this case came to be compromised by the spurious belief that we had evidence of the use of a Libyan timer, when in fact we did not?. Don't you want to know how that fragment got into a Scottish police evidence bag? Don't you want to know if there is any connection between that and what Tam Dalyell records in his forward to Ashton's earlier work Cover up of Convenience, (Mainstream publishing, Edinburgh, 2001)? '....American agents were swarming around the area [of the Lockerbie crash site]...... the [Scottish] police were doing nothing to stop them.'

To Mr Cameron I would say remember the disgrace of the IRA wrongful convictions under English law. Even those who do look at the facts before making judgements sometimes get things dreadfully wrong. In this case you haven't even looked at the facts, have you?

To Mr Salmond: your people of Scotland must be allowed to see whether the Zeist court went dreadfully wrong or not. The more independent we become, the greater will become their need to be sure that their justice system is free of all political interference.

As for some of us, the relatives of those brutally murdered at Lockerbie, we are tired of being treated as if we were ignorant children. We are not going away, we have a right to the truth. My lay advice would be to bite the bullet both of you now, before it cripples your careers. We have seen enough of party political point scoring in Holyrood and Westminster. Call in the experts, look at the facts: all we want is the truth, and to protect us all better in the future.

Meanwhile Mr Cameron and Mr Salmond consider this please.... if we are correct in believing that the story of a Libyan bomb launched by Megrahi from Malta is fiction, then to protect that fiction would be to protect the real culprits who carried out this terrible action. Is that really what you want to be associated with in the annals of history? These are indeed a thousand days of shame.

So how about a deep breath and having a fresh look at all the facts? Ashton's title claims that we - the public -  are now Megrahi's jury. To be an effective jury, we need first to hear all the facts of the case laid out fair and square before us: are you afraid to allow that to happen? If so why?

[A letter submitted by Dr Swire to The Scotsman and also as yet unpublished reads as follows:]

On Monday David Cameron issued a stinging attack on Mr Salmond's Government over the compassionate release of Abdel Baset al Megrahi just 1000 days ago.

I had the privilege of petitioning Mr Kenny MacAskill before his release decision claiming that Mr Megrahi should be released at once.

I had two reasons for doing that.

First, as a doctor I knew that he was dying and had an incurable and extremely painful future before him and, guilty or innocent, compassion alone dictated that he should now live out his remaining time with his loving wife and family. I believe that his survival for almost exactly 1000 days after MacAskill's decision is due basically to the love and care of his family replacing his isolation from them in Greenock prison, however humane his care was there. In addition advanced chemotherapy, including Abiraterone available in Libya, though not Scotland, may have bought him some extra months. All of us male potential victims of this cancer in the future should rejoice, not moan at his prolonged survival, who knows for whom the bell may toll next?

Second, I believed that the verdict against him was unsafe. Yet I had attended the debate at Holyrood following MacAskill's decision, where the blowtorches of the party political infighters had been turned upon Kenny for his decision, not to mention those of Westminster and the United States. Only one MSP (Christine Grahame, SNP) really tried then to point to the uncertainty over the verdict against this man.

On 29th February this year immediately prior to the launch of John Ashton's book Megrahi: You are my Jury 10 Downing street issued a statement claiming the book to be 'an insult to the [Lockerbie] relatives, they had not yet seen it. Now Cameron, speaking of Megrahi's survival till almost 1000 days after his release claimed on Monday:-

"One thousand days on, this is yet another reminder that Alex Salmond's Government's decision to free (sic) the biggest mass murderer in British history was wrong and an insult to the families of the 270 people who were murdered". Make that 269 and counting rapidly down, Mr Cameron.

The Ashton book shows among many other serious weaknesses in the prosecution case that a item of evidence, (the circuit board fragment known as PT35b) could not have come from a Libyan owned timer circuit board after all, as the court believed that it did; this was the last secure bastion of the fable (now surely myth) of Megrahi having started the bomb from Malta:  Even the leader of the FBI Lockerbie investigators Edward Marshman had said publicly that the trial could not have proceeded without it.

In the 1000 days since Kenny made his move, the Salmond administration has maintained the position that it has no reason to doubt the Megrahi verdict. They too appear to choose to be ignorant of the accumulating evidence indicating the urgent need for a re-assessment of the facts in this case.

Time perhaps for Mr Salmond to take the cue from Willie Rennie MSP a voice I hear above the party political babel North of the border who has said inter alia "...... we should be investigating whether crucial information was withheld from the trial". We have already wasted 1000 days.

We should also be investigating just how the fragment PT35b came to be found within an official Scottish police evidence bag. The firm allegation from the Ashton book, supported by impeccable science (partly of Scottish origin) shows that the fragment presented to court could not have come from one of the Libyan timers. There was no evidence led of any other source for it among the wreckage. So just how did it appear in that bag apparently recovered from the debris field? There it was in that bag, wrapped in a shirt collar however did it get there if it had no real origin among the debris? Someone must know. and it's our responsibility Mr Salmond to discover how it emerged within the supposedly secure Scottish police evidence chain, is it not?

It would also be useful to know where the fragment PT35b really did come from, would it not?

That is if, as I'm sure is really the case Mr Salmond, you wish,like us relatives, to know the truth. This was the last bastion of the fable  of Megrahi having started the bomb from Malta: Marshman is right: no fragment, no trial.

As Cardinal Keith O'Brien has said he is glad that our Scottish justice system embodies a moiety of compassion.. We should also be proud of that even if Cameron is not. But people of this country need and deserve transparency in their justice systems. We are not at present moving towards that. It is too late now for Megrahi. It is not too late for the Scottish people nor for Megrahi's family. We must have objective reassessment of this case. Mr Cameron already has the examples of the gross miscarriages of justice under English law in IRA bomb cases, he might benefit from reviewing those findings.It is possible to be well intentioned, but wrong.

For 1000 days we may already have been screening the real perpetrators from justice through our inactivity. 

[An article by Tom Peterkin in The Scotsman today contains the following:]

If a week is a long time in politics then 1,000 days is the equivalent of a political aeon. This week saw the 1,000th day since the Lockerbie bomber was controversially released by Kenny MacAskill.

That “milestone” led to a bit of discussion in the Holyrood canteen – not so much on the remarkable longevity of a man who supposedly only had three months to live. It was more that the brouhaha and wall-to-wall coverage associated with Megrahi’s journey to Tripoli seemed to belong to a different age.

Since his release in August 2009, we have seen a general election, a Scottish election and local government elections. Political leaders have departed (Gordon Brown, Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie, Tavish Scott). Fortunes and reputations of others have risen and fallen (David Cameron, Nick Clegg).

Alex Salmond’s stock soared at the Scottish election but was checked slightly at the local elections. But the point was that it had been 1,000 days since Megrahi’s release and, as someone cleverly noted, there is a certain symmetry in that there are another 1,000 days to go before Salmond holds his independence referendum.

David Steel supports Lockerbie inquiry

David Steel (Lord Steel of Aikwood KT KBE PC) former leader of the UK Liberal Party, MP from 1965 to 1997, MSP from 1999 to 2003 and first Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, in an interview this evening declared his support for an independent inquiry into the Lockerbie disaster.

Prosecution disclosure

The trial of Ratko Mladic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague has today been suspended because of the prosecution’s “significant disclosure errors”. The presiding Dutch judge, Alphons Orie, said the judges were still analysing the "scope and full impact" of the errors.

In the Megrahi case, the bulk of the reasons found by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission for holding in 2007 that the conviction might have amounted to a miscarriage of justice related to breaches of the prosecution’s duty of disclosure. And John Ashton’s book Megrahi: You are my Jury has provided further examples of material that ought to have been disclosed by the Crown to the defence, but was not.

Just what is it about the rules regarding disclosure to the defence of evidence that could assist the accused that prosecutors in high profile criminal cases find so problematical? Is it possible that prosecution culture is so antipathetic towards the concepts of fair play and equality of arms that the rules embody that prosecutors deliberately seek to evade them? Surely not.

The Lockerbie Trial website still online

I am grateful to a friend on Facebook for reminding me that The Lockerbie Trial, a website that Ian Ferguson and I ran during the Zeist trial and appeal, is still available online.

Prime Minister crass to question a man's failure to die

[This is the headline over a letter from Ross Brown of Greenock in today’s edition of The Herald.  It reads as follows:]

David Cameron's scathing reference to the 1000th-day anniversary of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release from Greenock Prison is another example of distasteful and unnecessary political bickering ("Megrahi survival is insult to families", says Cameron", The Herald, May 14, and Letters, May 15).

In the aftermath of the Libyan uprising and the surprising exposure of Colonel Gadaffi as a bad egg, surely our perspectives on who held responsibility for the bombing of Pan-Am flight 107 should have been somewhat altered; the complex power structure within a Libya in the grip of a dictatorship muddies the water to the extent that Megrahi's role as a political scapegoat seems increasingly evident. As the head of a state lacking the death penalty, Mr Cameron's insistence on criticising a questionably guilty man's failure to die is both confusing and crass.

The ongoing focus on Megrahi is now interesting only in terms of highlighting seemingly effective cancer treatment; if indeed there is an absence of a conspiracy based on falsification of his illness, politicians should consider refraining from using the mortality of a cancer-stricken man as a means by which to further their careers.

So why did Westminster shirk its responsibility for Megrahi?

This is the headline over a series of letters in today’s edition of The Herald responding to yesterday’s report Megrahi survival is insult to families, says Cameron.  They read as follows:]


Yet again David Cameron attacks the Scottish administration over the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The sister, brother-in-law and niece of a good friend of mine during my teaching days at Our Lady's High School, Motherwell, died on the night of December 21, 1988, when debris from the explosion aboard Clipper Maid of the Seas, Pan Am Flight 103, landed on their home in Lockerbie.

The Prime Minister states quite unequivocally: "One thousand days on, this is yet another reminder that Alex Salmond's Government's decision to free the biggest mass murderer in British history was wrong and an insult to the 270 people who were murdered." Naturally, Labour's Justice Spokesman at Holyrood, Lewis Macdonald, joins in: "Every anniversary and milestone reached by the man responsible for Scotland's worst-ever act of terrorism must be a grim reminder for the families of the Lockerbie victims." And the Tory Holyrood whip, John Lamont, speaks of "an embarrassing milestone" and a decision that "looks more and more outrageous".

Where were they and why were they functionally silent when the decision to free Megrahi was being made? I ask the same of Her Majesty's Government of the day.

I say "functionally silent" because a lot of these people had a lot to say in all the wrong places.

Under the devolution disposition, in relation to legislation all matters concerning national security, foreign policy and foreign relations are reserved to Westminster. Similarly, in relation to executive action all matters concerning national security, foreign policy and foreign relations are reserved to Whitehall. Megrahi's arrest, detention, trial, imprisonment and then, finally, the decision to set him free on licence intimately involved all elements of that oft-times-unholy trinity.

I am neither a politician nor a lawyer, but it would seem to me that prima facie the Westminster Government could and should have been the only organ of state to make any decisions in relation to Megrahi's possible release. And if the Scottish administration argued otherwise why did no-one from the Westminster Government, or the Opposition benches, seek to determine what the view of the courts, north and/or south of the Border, would be to an application to stay the Scottish administration's hand for want of jurisdiction by virtue of these higher political and constitutional considerations?
Hugh McLoughlin
[RB: Any such application would have failed.  Responsibility under the devolution settlement for compassionate release (or prisoner transfer) of prisoners in Scottish prisons rests in law squarely and clearly with the Scottish Government.  In any event, as we all know, the then Labour Government at Westminster was very keen indeed that Megrahi should be repatriated.  That, after all, was the principal aim of Tony Blair's deal in the desert.]

How convenient for our Prime Minister that Megrahi has survived 1000 days and he can rail at this and the First Minister, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill and all the medical advisers who recommended release on compassionate grounds. Neither he nor his advisers seem to have taken into account the very real doubts over the safety of the conviction with bribed witnesses and withheld crucial information. Megrahi is not by any means the first person to survive a terminal condition for several years and he will not be the last.

However, by bringing this topic up in such a public way it gives him the opportunity to deflect attention from what is being called the "omnishambles" of his Government. Daily we are reminded just what an incompetent bunch he and his ministers are: witness the granny tax, pasty tax, the NHS reforms, P45s for troops on duty, sale of the Harrier jump-jet fleet at a knock-down price to America, destroying Nimrod surveillance aircraft, aircraft carriers that will have no planes until 2020 or thereby and now the jump-jet reversal of choice. If it had been written as a theatrical farce the audience would be in stitches.                           
Nigel Dewar Gibb

I was always a fan of Dr Finlay's Casebook but I didn't expect a Dr Cameron to make a return to medicine.

David Cameron obviously now sees himself as a medical expert (I guess as much a medical expert as he is a financial and political one) in that he seems to believe that he would have been able to predict the lifespan of Megrahi better than a few Scottish medical experts can.

Whatever the truth of the Lockerbie bombing it seems crass, to say the least, to use it to score rather weak political points. If this is the best case he can find to question the judgments of the Scottish Government then it seems we must be doing quite a good job of running our own country after all.
Dave Bertin

Megrahi survival is insult to families, says Cameron

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


David Cameron has said the length of time since the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing was freed is a reminder of a wrong decision taken by the Scottish Government and an insult to the victims' families.

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is set to mark on Wednesday the thousandth day since his release. He was allowed to return to Libya by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill on compassionate grounds because he was suffering from prostate cancer.

It is believed his survival is linked in part to treatment with a cancer drug, Abiraterone, not routinely available on the NHS in Scotland.

Prior to his release, doctors predicted Megrahi had three months to live but as the landmark date approaches, the Prime Minister told The Herald: "One thousand days on, this is yet another reminder that Alex Salmond's Government's decision to free the biggest mass murderer in British history was wrong and an insult to the families of the 270 people who were murdered."

Labour and the Scottish Conservatives also questioned Mr MacAskill's decision while Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie called for an investigation into claims crucial information was withheld from Megrahi's trial.

Labour justice spokesman Lewis Macdonald said: "Every anniversary and milestone reached by the man responsible for Scotland's worst-ever act of terrorism must be a grim reminder for the families of the Lockerbie victims. Given that Megrahi was given roughly 100 days to live at the time Kenny MacAskill chose to release him, it is astonishing that he is now set to reach 1000 days and calls into question the reasons for the Justice Secretary's decision."

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont said it was "an embarrassing milestone" for the Scottish Government, and that with every week that goes by, the release decision "looks more and more outrageous".

Mr Rennie said: "However evil Megrahi is, however badly the SNP handled his release and however long he has survived, rather than obsessing about whether a dying man is dead yet we should be investigating whether crucial information was withheld from the trial."

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said extensive scrutiny had vindicated the decision.

"Whether people support or oppose the decision, it was made following the due process of Scots law and we stand by it: al Megrahi is an extremely sick man dying of terminal prostate cancer."

The spokesman said "substantial opinion" including that of Nelson Mandela and Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter died in the airline bombing, supported the decision.

He said the Government respects the views of those who oppose it, but regardless of those views "they can have complete confidence that it was taken on the basis of Scots law".

[What is truly an insult to the Lockerbie families and to the people of Scotland is the failure to investigate the shameful performance of the Scottish criminal justice system in the investigation, prosecution and conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi. See I accuse… and Dave’s disgrace.  Scottish lawyers' magazine The Firm has published on its website a news item about Willie Rennie's statement.]

Terror victims respond to UN's report on their rights with caution

[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of The Observer.  It reads in part:]

Victims of terror attacks welcome the UN's call for greater recognition, but remain sceptical over compensation terms

A report by drawn up by UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson, details of which have been obtained by The Observer, proposes wide-ranging improvements in the legal treatment of those injured in terrorist attacks around the world, including an automatic right to compensation. (...)

Pamela Dix, Executive Director of Disaster Action, supporting those caught up in terrorism or disaster, began campaigning after her brother Peter died aboard Pan Am flight over Lockerbie in 1988. "If you had suggested 23 years ago that I would still be fighting the government on all fronts for appropriate recognition, trying to get politicians to deliver on promises, I would never have believed it. You don't realise the limitations of the system until you find yourself in that position." She welcomed a recognition of the right to form groups.

Ben Emmerson, who wrote the report, said victims' stories should be at the core of anti-terrorism strategies. "Over the past decade, international human rights law has undergone a crisis of public and political confidence. By making it clear that the law is there to protect the victims, and not just those who are suspected of terrorism, the international community can start to restore those basic principles of human rights law that have taken such a battering," he said.

[A further article in The Observer giving more details of the content of the UN report can be read here.]