[This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:]
Prosecutors investigating the Lockerbie bombing are examining evidence that could implicate Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan acquitted of the atrocity, documents obtained by Scotland on Sunday suggest.
The Crown Office has always maintained that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Libyan agent convicted of the 1988 bombing, did not act alone. Last month, prosecutors requested new hearings to be held in private in Malta. Scotland on Sunday understands the basis of those hearings related to the actions of Megrahi, Fhimah and others in the Libyan intelligence services.
The investigation is focused on the explosive package placed on Air Malta flight KM180, which was transferred on to Pan Am flight 103, and exploded above Lockerbie, killing 270 people.
Fhimah, a former station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines, stood trial alongside Megrahi at Camp Zeist. He was acquitted in 2001 by the presiding judge, Lord Sutherland, and returned home to a hero’s welcome in Libya. He could face a new prosecution under double jeopardy legislation passed by the Scottish Government last year.
Yesterday the Crown Office refused to say whether Fhimah is one of the people being looked at by the cold case unit as a double jeopardy candidate.
However, documents sent along with a “commission rogatoire” – a formal request for judicial assistance – by the Crown Office to officials in Malta, reveal he is still in their sights. The Crown Office declined to disclose details of the letter, following a Freedom of Information request. However, it did include a “summary of facts”.
In it the Crown said: “The circumstances giving rise to this request are that it is alleged that the said Megrahi and Fhimah, acting in concert with others and with the Libyan intelligence services... caused an improvised explosive device to be placed among clothing and an umbrella, which had been purchased in Malta, within a suitcase which had been tagged so as to enable it to be carried on Air Malta flight KM180 to Frankfurt on 21 December, 1988.”
A Crown Office spokesman said: “The trial court accepted that Megrahi acted in furtherance of the Libyan intelligence services in an act of state sponsored terrorism and did not act alone. It would not be appropriate to offer further comment.”
[Today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times contains a report based on the Scotland on Sunday article.]
Sunday, 21 October 2012
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Justice for Megrahi media conference on 23 October
MEDIA CONFERENCE
11.45 am Tuesday 23 October 2012: Macdonald Holyrood Hotel, 81 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AU
“Justice for Megrahi (JFM) Committee to give details of allegations made to the Justice Secretary in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah.”
BACKGROUND TO MEDIA CONFERENCE
On 13 September, the Justice for Megrahi Committee (JFM) wrote to Kenny MacAskill, Secretary for Justice, formally lodging complaints alleging criminal wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988. The Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate responded.
Given the unsatisfactory nature of this response, JFM has written to Mr MacAskill outlining their concerns which include his perceived failure to act independently and appropriately in handling the complaints.
To assist public understanding of the issues under dispute, the JFM committee will hold a media conference as above and will make a summary of the allegations available together with details of the related correspondence.
EVENTS
11.45 hrs Media packs available with documentation related to allegations and complaints.
12.00 hrs Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black, Robert Forrester, Father Pat Keegans, all members of the JFM committee, and Jock M W Thomson QC will outline the implications of the allegations and complaints.
12.30 hrs Above panel available for interview/photographs.
11.45 am Tuesday 23 October 2012: Macdonald Holyrood Hotel, 81 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh EH8 8AU
“Justice for Megrahi (JFM) Committee to give details of allegations made to the Justice Secretary in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah.”
BACKGROUND TO MEDIA CONFERENCE
On 13 September, the Justice for Megrahi Committee (JFM) wrote to Kenny MacAskill, Secretary for Justice, formally lodging complaints alleging criminal wrongdoing in the investigation and prosecution of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah for the murder of 270 people in the downing of Pan Am 103 on 21 December 1988. The Deputy Director of Criminal Law and Licensing at the Justice Directorate responded.
Given the unsatisfactory nature of this response, JFM has written to Mr MacAskill outlining their concerns which include his perceived failure to act independently and appropriately in handling the complaints.
To assist public understanding of the issues under dispute, the JFM committee will hold a media conference as above and will make a summary of the allegations available together with details of the related correspondence.
EVENTS
11.45 hrs Media packs available with documentation related to allegations and complaints.
12.00 hrs Dr Jim Swire, Professor Robert Black, Robert Forrester, Father Pat Keegans, all members of the JFM committee, and Jock M W Thomson QC will outline the implications of the allegations and complaints.
12.30 hrs Above panel available for interview/photographs.
US Attorney General fulminates over McKinnon and Megrahi
[The following are excerpts from a report in today’s edition of the The Daily Telegraph:]
America is preparing formally to complain to Britain over Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision to block the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon (...)
A strongly-worded letter from US attorney general Eric Holder was due to be delivered to Mrs May’s office at the Home Office last night.
The row over Mr McKinnon has turned into the biggest cooling in trans-Atlantic relations since Lockerbie bomber was released three years ago.
Senior US officials are now understood to describe the relationship between the Obama administration and Mrs May as “finished”.
Mr Holder is understood to feel “completely screwed” by Mrs May’s decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon because of doctors’ fears that he might kill himself, complaining that the US has wasted million so pounds on legal fees for the case.
The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Holder has refused to return Mrs May’s phone calls since her surprise announcement on Tuesday.
The depth of ill-feeling could jeopardise co-operation with the US over security because Mrs May leads for the UK in talks with Washington.
A senior administration official said: “This was a cheap political trick by Theresa May to further her political career.
“Mrs May told us in July that there were no legal or medical grounds to block his extradition, and then she changed her mind without having the decency to inform us.”
The official said the row had comparisons with row over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi in 2009.
The source said: “After all the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya on humanitarian grounds, this decision on Gary McKinnon does not inspire confidence that the British government is serious about dealing with serious security issues.” (...)
American officials were surprised by the sudden change in stance because Mrs May told Mr Holder in a letter on July 12 there were no legal or medical grounds to block McKinnon’s extradition to the US.
According to former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson, Mrs May admitted to Mr Holder in July there were also “ramifications for national security” if the extradition was blocked.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We do not routinely comment on Ministerial correspondence.”
[Earlier instances of Attorney General Holder’s involvement in the Megrahi case can be found here.]
America is preparing formally to complain to Britain over Home Secretary Theresa May’s decision to block the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon (...)
A strongly-worded letter from US attorney general Eric Holder was due to be delivered to Mrs May’s office at the Home Office last night.
The row over Mr McKinnon has turned into the biggest cooling in trans-Atlantic relations since Lockerbie bomber was released three years ago.
Senior US officials are now understood to describe the relationship between the Obama administration and Mrs May as “finished”.
Mr Holder is understood to feel “completely screwed” by Mrs May’s decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon because of doctors’ fears that he might kill himself, complaining that the US has wasted million so pounds on legal fees for the case.
The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Holder has refused to return Mrs May’s phone calls since her surprise announcement on Tuesday.
The depth of ill-feeling could jeopardise co-operation with the US over security because Mrs May leads for the UK in talks with Washington.
A senior administration official said: “This was a cheap political trick by Theresa May to further her political career.
“Mrs May told us in July that there were no legal or medical grounds to block his extradition, and then she changed her mind without having the decency to inform us.”
The official said the row had comparisons with row over the Scottish Government’s decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbasset Al Megrahi in 2009.
The source said: “After all the controversy over the release of the Lockerbie bomber to Libya on humanitarian grounds, this decision on Gary McKinnon does not inspire confidence that the British government is serious about dealing with serious security issues.” (...)
American officials were surprised by the sudden change in stance because Mrs May told Mr Holder in a letter on July 12 there were no legal or medical grounds to block McKinnon’s extradition to the US.
According to former Labour home secretary Alan Johnson, Mrs May admitted to Mr Holder in July there were also “ramifications for national security” if the extradition was blocked.
A Home Office spokesman said: “We do not routinely comment on Ministerial correspondence.”
[Earlier instances of Attorney General Holder’s involvement in the Megrahi case can be found here.]
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Gaddafi-era officials kept in jail over Lockerbie case
[This is the heading over a translated transcript on the Link TV website of an item broadcast on the BBC Arabic service. It reads as follows:]
Presenter, Male #1
Two former Libyan regime officials, Mohammed al-Zwai and Abdulati al-Obeidi, appeared before the Tripoli appeals court where they are being tried on charges of squandering public money in the Lockerbie case, and of treason. The court ordered them to remain in prison pending the outcome of the case, and rejected the defense's request to release them on bail.
Reporter, Male #2
Strict security measures were enforced near the court of appeals in the Libyan capital Tripoli as two former officials from the era of the late leader Muammar Gaddafi, speaker of parliament Mohammed al-Zwai and foreign minister Abdulati al-Obeidi, arrived to appear before the court. They are charged with squandering public funds by granting compensations to the families of the victims in the case of the bombing of Pan American [flight 103] over the Scottish city of Lockerbie, which exceeded USD 2.7 billion, and for treason by betraying the state's trust to negotiate on its behalf abroad.
Reporter, Male #2
During the session, the two defendants denied the accusations directed against them by the judge who refused to release them and ordered to keep them in prison pending the outcome of the case. As soon the session ended, the defense lawyer expressed satisfaction with the course of the trial, despite the rejection of his request to release his clients on bail.
Guest, Male #3
The court granted our requests despite rejecting the request for their release but this is its jurisdiction. I am satisfied because the court heard us, and heard the justifications for the release request, and the justifications to hear the defense witnesses. We hope that the trial will be a fair one.
Reporter, Male #2
The Libyan street seemed to be following this case with great interest, placing their confidence in the Libyan judiciary.
Guest, Male #4
The Libyan judiciary is known for being fair, and it has been in existence for a long time, and we are very confident in the Libyan judiciary. As for the people who are now being tried, the law is the decider. If the law finds them guilty, they will bear the consequences of their acts. And if the law finds them innocent, they are just Libyan citizens, just like all Libyans.
Guest, Male #5
Everything is under the command of the Libyan authorities and the Libyan judiciary, and I am certain that at the end it will be fair, and it will not be unjust again.
Reporter, Male #2
According to the documents of the case against the two defendants, they are not authorized to negotiate all of the provisions of the agreement and its conditions, and they will be tried in accordance with the Economic Crimes Law and the Penal Code.
Presenter, Male #1
Two former Libyan regime officials, Mohammed al-Zwai and Abdulati al-Obeidi, appeared before the Tripoli appeals court where they are being tried on charges of squandering public money in the Lockerbie case, and of treason. The court ordered them to remain in prison pending the outcome of the case, and rejected the defense's request to release them on bail.
Reporter, Male #2
Strict security measures were enforced near the court of appeals in the Libyan capital Tripoli as two former officials from the era of the late leader Muammar Gaddafi, speaker of parliament Mohammed al-Zwai and foreign minister Abdulati al-Obeidi, arrived to appear before the court. They are charged with squandering public funds by granting compensations to the families of the victims in the case of the bombing of Pan American [flight 103] over the Scottish city of Lockerbie, which exceeded USD 2.7 billion, and for treason by betraying the state's trust to negotiate on its behalf abroad.
Reporter, Male #2
During the session, the two defendants denied the accusations directed against them by the judge who refused to release them and ordered to keep them in prison pending the outcome of the case. As soon the session ended, the defense lawyer expressed satisfaction with the course of the trial, despite the rejection of his request to release his clients on bail.
Guest, Male #3
The court granted our requests despite rejecting the request for their release but this is its jurisdiction. I am satisfied because the court heard us, and heard the justifications for the release request, and the justifications to hear the defense witnesses. We hope that the trial will be a fair one.
Reporter, Male #2
The Libyan street seemed to be following this case with great interest, placing their confidence in the Libyan judiciary.
Guest, Male #4
The Libyan judiciary is known for being fair, and it has been in existence for a long time, and we are very confident in the Libyan judiciary. As for the people who are now being tried, the law is the decider. If the law finds them guilty, they will bear the consequences of their acts. And if the law finds them innocent, they are just Libyan citizens, just like all Libyans.
Guest, Male #5
Everything is under the command of the Libyan authorities and the Libyan judiciary, and I am certain that at the end it will be fair, and it will not be unjust again.
Reporter, Male #2
According to the documents of the case against the two defendants, they are not authorized to negotiate all of the provisions of the agreement and its conditions, and they will be tried in accordance with the Economic Crimes Law and the Penal Code.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Politicians linked to Lockerbie case return to court
[This is the headline over a report dated 15 October on the Zapaday website. It reads as follows:]
The court case resumes for two former government officials working for the late Moammer Gaddafi's regime. They are accused of squandering public money by granting a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the families of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing victims.
The accused, Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, allegedly brokered this compensation deal in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions and US trade sanctions on Libya. In addition, they requested that Libya be removed from a list of states known for sponsoring terrorism.
These two former senior officials are charged with treason for engaging in negotiations with the lawyers of the victims' families, with the full knowledge that lawyers are not authorised by the US administration to negotiate the conditions of trade sanctions and terrorism suspects.
The presiding judge has argued that the compensation deal was a waste of public money since there was no guarantee that the conditions would be met, nor that the charges for the bombing would be dropped. Observers have registered surprise at the wording of the charges. Given that Libya's central government is still weak after the ousting of Gaddafi, it has been argued that legal proceedings at the moment do not meet international standards.
However, it is evident that Libya's new rulers are keen to show citizens that those who helped Gaddafi cling to power shall be held accountable. Both Saif Al-Islam, Gaddafi's son and Abdullah Al- Senussi, Libya's former chief spy are awaiting trial.
[An earlier post on this blog relating to the trial of Messrs Zwai and Obeidi can be read here.]
The court case resumes for two former government officials working for the late Moammer Gaddafi's regime. They are accused of squandering public money by granting a compensation deal of $2.7 billion to the families of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing victims.
The accused, Mohammed Abu El-Gassem Yusuf al-Zwai and Abdulati Ibrahim Muhammad al-Obeidi, allegedly brokered this compensation deal in exchange for the lifting of UN sanctions and US trade sanctions on Libya. In addition, they requested that Libya be removed from a list of states known for sponsoring terrorism.
These two former senior officials are charged with treason for engaging in negotiations with the lawyers of the victims' families, with the full knowledge that lawyers are not authorised by the US administration to negotiate the conditions of trade sanctions and terrorism suspects.
The presiding judge has argued that the compensation deal was a waste of public money since there was no guarantee that the conditions would be met, nor that the charges for the bombing would be dropped. Observers have registered surprise at the wording of the charges. Given that Libya's central government is still weak after the ousting of Gaddafi, it has been argued that legal proceedings at the moment do not meet international standards.
However, it is evident that Libya's new rulers are keen to show citizens that those who helped Gaddafi cling to power shall be held accountable. Both Saif Al-Islam, Gaddafi's son and Abdullah Al- Senussi, Libya's former chief spy are awaiting trial.
[An earlier post on this blog relating to the trial of Messrs Zwai and Obeidi can be read here.]
Monday, 15 October 2012
The Gauci brothers and payment
[Five years ago today, an item in the following terms was posted on this blog under the heading Now there’s a surprise!:]
Lucy Adams in The Herald of 15 October has a story to the effect that Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent who led the US joint task force on Lockerbie (and author of the book Scotbom: Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0875864495) remains of the view that Megrahi was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and regrets only that the will is lacking to bring other more senior Libyans to trial.
He confirms that there were discussions about about monetary payments to the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, but is unable to say whether any money was in fact paid over.
See "Ex-FBI agent: no will to keep up Lockerbie investigation".
[What Mr Marquise is quoted as saying in the report in The Herald is this:]
He said he was unaware of any financial discussions between the CIA and the Gaucis but confirmed the US government ran a rewards programme for information at the time. "I know that when PanAm 103 went down, the State Department had a new programme called rewards for justice," he said.
It was well advertised in the Middle East, but the Scottish legal system has no mechanisms whatsoever for paying people and no comparative witness protection programme.
"We talked about it and we talked about the Gaucis and whether they needed to be protected," said Mr Marquise. "I think someone spoke to them in 1991 and said if you feel threatened we will relocate you, but as far as I am aware no-one offered them millions of dollars. Tony Gauci told someone that Australia would be the only place he might like to go, but he was happy in Malta and did not want to leave his pigeons so the subject was dropped. Instead extra security, including a panic button, was added to his shop."
[This should be compared with what we now know from Inspector Harry Bell’s diary of his dealings with the Gauci brothers, Tony and Paul. The following is from a report in the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
A document seen by the Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review Commission which reviewed the Lockerbie trial proceedings shows that star witness Tony Gauci had shown an interest in receiving money. (...)
The document was a memorandum dated February 21, 1991, titled Security of Witness Anthony Gauci, Malta, that consisted of a report sent by investigator Harry Bell to Supt Gilchrist just after Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi from a photo-spread six days earlier.
The memorandum was never disclosed by the prosecution during the trial.
Mr Bell discusses the possibility of Mr Gauci’s inclusion in a witness protection programme. The final paragraph, however, makes reference to a different matter: “During recent meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money. It would appear that he is aware of the US reward monies which have been reported in the press.” (...)
But the review commission also had access to a confidential report dated June 10, 1999 by British police officers drawing up an assessment for the possible inclusion of Tony Gauci in a witness protection programme administered by Strathclyde Police.
In the report Mr Gauci is described as being “somewhat frustrated that he will not be compensated in any financial way for his contribution to the case”.
Mr Gauci is described in the report as a “humble man who leads a very simple life which is firmly built on a strong sense of honesty and decency”.
But the officers also interviewed Mr Gauci’s brother Paul, in connection with his inclusion in the programme.
The following passage in the report details their conclusions in this respect: “It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have... Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
The report makes it clear that until then the Gaucis had not received any money.
But the commission established that some time after the conclusion of Mr Megrahi’s appeal, Tony and Paul Gauci were each paid sums of money under the Rewards or Justice programme administered by the US State Department.
Of particular note is an entry in Mr Bell’s diary for September 28, 1989: “He (Agent Murray of the FBI) had authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci and relocation is available. Murray states that he could arrange $10,000 immediately.”
When interviewed by the commission, Mr Bell was asked if Agent Murray had ever met Mr Gauci, to which he replied “I cannot say that he did not do so”.
However, the commission also noted that FBI Agent Hosinski had met with Mr Gauci alone on October 2, 1989 but Mr Bell said he would “seriously doubt that any offer of money was made to Tony during that meeting”.
Lucy Adams in The Herald of 15 October has a story to the effect that Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent who led the US joint task force on Lockerbie (and author of the book Scotbom: Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation, 2006, ISBN-13: 978-0875864495) remains of the view that Megrahi was responsible for the bombing of Pan Am 103 and regrets only that the will is lacking to bring other more senior Libyans to trial.
He confirms that there were discussions about about monetary payments to the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, but is unable to say whether any money was in fact paid over.
See "Ex-FBI agent: no will to keep up Lockerbie investigation".
[What Mr Marquise is quoted as saying in the report in The Herald is this:]
He said he was unaware of any financial discussions between the CIA and the Gaucis but confirmed the US government ran a rewards programme for information at the time. "I know that when PanAm 103 went down, the State Department had a new programme called rewards for justice," he said.
It was well advertised in the Middle East, but the Scottish legal system has no mechanisms whatsoever for paying people and no comparative witness protection programme.
"We talked about it and we talked about the Gaucis and whether they needed to be protected," said Mr Marquise. "I think someone spoke to them in 1991 and said if you feel threatened we will relocate you, but as far as I am aware no-one offered them millions of dollars. Tony Gauci told someone that Australia would be the only place he might like to go, but he was happy in Malta and did not want to leave his pigeons so the subject was dropped. Instead extra security, including a panic button, was added to his shop."
[This should be compared with what we now know from Inspector Harry Bell’s diary of his dealings with the Gauci brothers, Tony and Paul. The following is from a report in the Maltese newspaper, The Times:]
A document seen by the Scottish [Criminal Cases] Review Commission which reviewed the Lockerbie trial proceedings shows that star witness Tony Gauci had shown an interest in receiving money. (...)
The document was a memorandum dated February 21, 1991, titled Security of Witness Anthony Gauci, Malta, that consisted of a report sent by investigator Harry Bell to Supt Gilchrist just after Mr Gauci identified Mr Megrahi from a photo-spread six days earlier.
The memorandum was never disclosed by the prosecution during the trial.
Mr Bell discusses the possibility of Mr Gauci’s inclusion in a witness protection programme. The final paragraph, however, makes reference to a different matter: “During recent meetings with Tony he has expressed an interest in receiving money. It would appear that he is aware of the US reward monies which have been reported in the press.” (...)
But the review commission also had access to a confidential report dated June 10, 1999 by British police officers drawing up an assessment for the possible inclusion of Tony Gauci in a witness protection programme administered by Strathclyde Police.
In the report Mr Gauci is described as being “somewhat frustrated that he will not be compensated in any financial way for his contribution to the case”.
Mr Gauci is described in the report as a “humble man who leads a very simple life which is firmly built on a strong sense of honesty and decency”.
But the officers also interviewed Mr Gauci’s brother Paul, in connection with his inclusion in the programme.
The following passage in the report details their conclusions in this respect: “It is apparent from speaking to him for any length of time that he has a clear desire to gain financial benefit from the position he and his brother are in relative to the case. As a consequence he exaggerates his own importance as a witness and clearly inflates the fears that he and his brother have... Although demanding, Paul Gauci remains an asset to the case but will continue to explore any means he can to identify where financial advantage can be gained.”
The report makes it clear that until then the Gaucis had not received any money.
But the commission established that some time after the conclusion of Mr Megrahi’s appeal, Tony and Paul Gauci were each paid sums of money under the Rewards or Justice programme administered by the US State Department.
Of particular note is an entry in Mr Bell’s diary for September 28, 1989: “He (Agent Murray of the FBI) had authority to arrange unlimited money for Tony Gauci and relocation is available. Murray states that he could arrange $10,000 immediately.”
When interviewed by the commission, Mr Bell was asked if Agent Murray had ever met Mr Gauci, to which he replied “I cannot say that he did not do so”.
However, the commission also noted that FBI Agent Hosinski had met with Mr Gauci alone on October 2, 1989 but Mr Bell said he would “seriously doubt that any offer of money was made to Tony during that meeting”.
Friday, 12 October 2012
Reveal who else you asked to help free Libyan bomber, Labour tells Salmond
[This is the headline over a report (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times. It is, of course, a scandalously inaccurate headline. No-one, not even the Labour Party (whose hands are far from clean: remember Tony Blair’s deal in the desert?) is accusing the First Minister of asking Donald Trump or any other international figure to help free Abdelbaset Megrahi. The accusation is that he asked them to support his compassionate release after it had taken place. The article reads in part:]
An unlikely alliance of an American billionaire and a Labour politician last night ratcheted up the pressure on Alex Salmond to explain his behaviour over what Donald Trump called his “absolutely disgusting” decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
It has emerged that Mr Salmond’s special adviser prepared a letter supporting the Scottish government’s decision to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and asked Mr Trump to sign. He refused, but other figures, including Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, agreed to endorse the release, in 2009.
“The First Minister was totally outsmarted by the Libyans, who greeted Megrahi, waving, in a mocking fashion, the great Scottish flag,” Mr Trump said.
“As everyone is now aware, Salmond put a great deal of pressure on me and my organisation to sign a letter dictated by him, on Scottish government letterhead, to fully endorse his absolutely disgusting decision.”
While Mr Salmond has refused to comment on the letter drafted for Mr Trump, he suggested on Wednesday that it was no “big deal” that his government had asked international figures to support an important decision.
“Any government is perfectly entitled to seek support for decisions they take,” Mr Salmond said. “Nelson Mandela’s name will appear on the list, but so what? That’s what governments do: if you make decisions, you seek support for those decisions. You are absolutely entitled to do that. There is nothing surprising or untoward about it.”
The Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald has tabled a series of questions seeking to identify a full list of those approached to support the Scottish government’s decision. He said: “This whole episode leaves me with a deep sense of unease about how the First Minister operates.”
Mr Trump insists that it was his refusal to endorse the release of al-Megrahi that soured the First Minister’s attitude to the tycoon’s £750 million golf resort planned for Menie, near Aberdeen.
An unlikely alliance of an American billionaire and a Labour politician last night ratcheted up the pressure on Alex Salmond to explain his behaviour over what Donald Trump called his “absolutely disgusting” decision to release the Lockerbie bomber.
It has emerged that Mr Salmond’s special adviser prepared a letter supporting the Scottish government’s decision to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi and asked Mr Trump to sign. He refused, but other figures, including Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, agreed to endorse the release, in 2009.
“The First Minister was totally outsmarted by the Libyans, who greeted Megrahi, waving, in a mocking fashion, the great Scottish flag,” Mr Trump said.
“As everyone is now aware, Salmond put a great deal of pressure on me and my organisation to sign a letter dictated by him, on Scottish government letterhead, to fully endorse his absolutely disgusting decision.”
While Mr Salmond has refused to comment on the letter drafted for Mr Trump, he suggested on Wednesday that it was no “big deal” that his government had asked international figures to support an important decision.
“Any government is perfectly entitled to seek support for decisions they take,” Mr Salmond said. “Nelson Mandela’s name will appear on the list, but so what? That’s what governments do: if you make decisions, you seek support for those decisions. You are absolutely entitled to do that. There is nothing surprising or untoward about it.”
The Labour MSP Lewis Macdonald has tabled a series of questions seeking to identify a full list of those approached to support the Scottish government’s decision. He said: “This whole episode leaves me with a deep sense of unease about how the First Minister operates.”
Mr Trump insists that it was his refusal to endorse the release of al-Megrahi that soured the First Minister’s attitude to the tycoon’s £750 million golf resort planned for Menie, near Aberdeen.
Wednesday, 10 October 2012
A time for truth
[This is the headline over a letter from David Flett published in today’s edition of The Scotsman. It reads as follows:]
The revelation that the SNP sought Donald Trump’s public approval of the release of Megrahi (your report, 9 October) paints a sad picture of today’s PR-obsessed political arena.
Spin doctoring, media manipulation and concealment of uncomfortable truths far outweigh integrity, honesty and justice.
Meanwhile, in the court of common sense, 270 murders remain unsolved, while these same deceptive politicians avoid the politically inconvenient process of initiating a public inquiry into the whole Lockerbie atrocity.
The two key pillars of Megrahi’s conviction have been thoroughly and publicly discredited. Through the work of journalists, investigators and those who simply had a genuine interest in uncovering the truth, we have found out that evidence relating to Tony Gauci and the circuit board fragment with the wrong coating should not have been admissible in court.
Yet, in August 2009, as Megrahi’s appeal neared its successful completion, our backroom politicians kicked swiftly into full crisis manipulation mode.
With expert conniving, manoeuvring and a small dose of clandestine blackmail, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi (despite maintaining his innocence) drops his appeal and is allowed to fly home.
So here we are, 24 years after Scotland’s biggest ever crime, stuck with a vanity-fixated government, ineffectual justice system and a deceived group of bereaved relatives.
Alex Salmond has the power and opportunity here to do something statesman-like and assist to dispel the obscurities surrounding Lockerbie.
Will he leave us all in the darkness with secret e-mails, or will he help shine a light on the truth by starting a public inquiry?
The revelation that the SNP sought Donald Trump’s public approval of the release of Megrahi (your report, 9 October) paints a sad picture of today’s PR-obsessed political arena.
Spin doctoring, media manipulation and concealment of uncomfortable truths far outweigh integrity, honesty and justice.
Meanwhile, in the court of common sense, 270 murders remain unsolved, while these same deceptive politicians avoid the politically inconvenient process of initiating a public inquiry into the whole Lockerbie atrocity.
The two key pillars of Megrahi’s conviction have been thoroughly and publicly discredited. Through the work of journalists, investigators and those who simply had a genuine interest in uncovering the truth, we have found out that evidence relating to Tony Gauci and the circuit board fragment with the wrong coating should not have been admissible in court.
Yet, in August 2009, as Megrahi’s appeal neared its successful completion, our backroom politicians kicked swiftly into full crisis manipulation mode.
With expert conniving, manoeuvring and a small dose of clandestine blackmail, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi (despite maintaining his innocence) drops his appeal and is allowed to fly home.
So here we are, 24 years after Scotland’s biggest ever crime, stuck with a vanity-fixated government, ineffectual justice system and a deceived group of bereaved relatives.
Alex Salmond has the power and opportunity here to do something statesman-like and assist to dispel the obscurities surrounding Lockerbie.
Will he leave us all in the darkness with secret e-mails, or will he help shine a light on the truth by starting a public inquiry?
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Scottish Lib Dem leader calls for Lockerbie bombing inquiry
[What follows is the text of a press release issued yesterday by the Scottish Liberal Democrats:]
Commenting on reports that Alex Salmond sought the endorsement of Donald Trump over the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie MSP said:
“The entrails of the close relationship he once enjoyed with Alex Salmond are being dissected by an increasingly bitter Donald Trump in a bid for revenge.
“We can over analyse past decisions. What is important now is that, while we continue a separate investigation, we have a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie tragedy.”
[A previous call by Mr Rennie for an inquiry can be read here.]
Commenting on reports that Alex Salmond sought the endorsement of Donald Trump over the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie MSP said:
“The entrails of the close relationship he once enjoyed with Alex Salmond are being dissected by an increasingly bitter Donald Trump in a bid for revenge.
“We can over analyse past decisions. What is important now is that, while we continue a separate investigation, we have a full public inquiry into the Lockerbie tragedy.”
[A previous call by Mr Rennie for an inquiry can be read here.]
Hell hath no fury like a tycoon scorned
[What follows is an excerpt from the coverage (behind the paywall) in today’s edition of The Times of the revelation that First Minister Alex Salmond solicited a statement of support from Donald Trump after the release of Abdelbaset Megrahi:]
Alex Salmond has been accused of “acting like a dictator” after it emerged that he rang Donald Trump to “demand” he endorse the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The First Minister then had his aides concoct a statement in which the US tycoon praised the SNP administration’s decision to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds as a gesture that “might break the cycle of violence around the world”.
In the statement, apparently drafted by Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s special adviser, it was suggested that Mr Trump should sympathise with Americans who lost family in the 1988 atrocity but conclude that al-Megrahi’s release “won’t stop my love affair with Scotland and the Scots. “No one should ever demean that country. Too many Scottish soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the head of the FBI to lecture Scots on fighting terrorism”, he was urged to say.
Mr Trump refused to endorse the statement. Last night his son, Donald Jnr, said it was inconceivable that the businessman could ever have signed. “We are New Yorkers, we have experienced terrorism at an extraordinary level,” said Mr Trump Jr, who works alongside his father.
“I think there was an element that we thought it must be a joke initially, had it not been so atrocious. No one in their right mind could have possibly asked someone to come out in favour of this decision.”
According to the Trump Organisation, the stand-off had profound consequences for the tycoon’s £750 million golf resort, planned for the Aberdeenshire coast.
After years of cosying up to Mr Trump, the First Minister suddenly turned his back on his scheme, encouraging the siting of 11 giant offshore wind turbines within a mile of the links, as part of the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre.
Mr Trump’s team accuses Mr Salmond of subsequently lobbying other organisations, including the Ministry of Defence and the RSPB, to withdraw their objections to the wind farm.
George Sorial, the executive vice-president of the Trump Organisation, said: “It is not acceptable for the First Minister to be running around acting like a dictator. This is not Cuba, not Iraq under Saddam Hussain.”
Both Mr Sorial and Mr Trump Jr were privy to the conference call in August 2009 when Mr Salmond rang to ask for assistance. The terrorist’s release had provoked a wave of anger in America, and Mr Sorial said he could recall the First Minister’s words.
“He was calling to ask us, but he was really making a demand,” said Mr Sorial. “(Salmond) said: ‘This is one of the low points in my political career, seeing this guy arrive in Tripoli to waving saltires. This is such an embarrassment for me. I need your help, I need your support. I am going to send you a statement and we expect that you will release it’.”
Mr Trump Jr added: “It was almost an expected quid pro quo, because he had supported our development, that we would support every aspect of his policies, even policies that no sane person could support, specifically the release of Megrahi. The First Minister was upset that we couldn’t do it.” (...)
Last night, Mr Trump used Twitter to insist that his refusal to support the release of al-Megrahi had prompted Mr Salmond to withdrawn his support for the golf resort.
“If Alex Salmond had not stupidly released terrorist al-Megrahi (PanAm flight 103) to his friends, there would be no Trump wind farm dispute,” he said.
[Other media reports are to be found today in The Scotsman here; in The Herald here; in the Daily Record here; in the Daily Express here; and in the Daily Telegraph here. This last contains the following reaction from the Scottish Government:]
A spokesman for Mr Salmond claimed the approach broke no rules and the Scottish Government was “perfectly entitled to hope for support from international stakeholders”.
He added: "Indeed, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, among many others around the world, supported this decision."
Alex Salmond has been accused of “acting like a dictator” after it emerged that he rang Donald Trump to “demand” he endorse the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
The First Minister then had his aides concoct a statement in which the US tycoon praised the SNP administration’s decision to free Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds as a gesture that “might break the cycle of violence around the world”.
In the statement, apparently drafted by Geoff Aberdein, Mr Salmond’s special adviser, it was suggested that Mr Trump should sympathise with Americans who lost family in the 1988 atrocity but conclude that al-Megrahi’s release “won’t stop my love affair with Scotland and the Scots. “No one should ever demean that country. Too many Scottish soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the head of the FBI to lecture Scots on fighting terrorism”, he was urged to say.
Mr Trump refused to endorse the statement. Last night his son, Donald Jnr, said it was inconceivable that the businessman could ever have signed. “We are New Yorkers, we have experienced terrorism at an extraordinary level,” said Mr Trump Jr, who works alongside his father.
“I think there was an element that we thought it must be a joke initially, had it not been so atrocious. No one in their right mind could have possibly asked someone to come out in favour of this decision.”
According to the Trump Organisation, the stand-off had profound consequences for the tycoon’s £750 million golf resort, planned for the Aberdeenshire coast.
After years of cosying up to Mr Trump, the First Minister suddenly turned his back on his scheme, encouraging the siting of 11 giant offshore wind turbines within a mile of the links, as part of the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre.
Mr Trump’s team accuses Mr Salmond of subsequently lobbying other organisations, including the Ministry of Defence and the RSPB, to withdraw their objections to the wind farm.
George Sorial, the executive vice-president of the Trump Organisation, said: “It is not acceptable for the First Minister to be running around acting like a dictator. This is not Cuba, not Iraq under Saddam Hussain.”
Both Mr Sorial and Mr Trump Jr were privy to the conference call in August 2009 when Mr Salmond rang to ask for assistance. The terrorist’s release had provoked a wave of anger in America, and Mr Sorial said he could recall the First Minister’s words.
“He was calling to ask us, but he was really making a demand,” said Mr Sorial. “(Salmond) said: ‘This is one of the low points in my political career, seeing this guy arrive in Tripoli to waving saltires. This is such an embarrassment for me. I need your help, I need your support. I am going to send you a statement and we expect that you will release it’.”
Mr Trump Jr added: “It was almost an expected quid pro quo, because he had supported our development, that we would support every aspect of his policies, even policies that no sane person could support, specifically the release of Megrahi. The First Minister was upset that we couldn’t do it.” (...)
Last night, Mr Trump used Twitter to insist that his refusal to support the release of al-Megrahi had prompted Mr Salmond to withdrawn his support for the golf resort.
“If Alex Salmond had not stupidly released terrorist al-Megrahi (PanAm flight 103) to his friends, there would be no Trump wind farm dispute,” he said.
[Other media reports are to be found today in The Scotsman here; in The Herald here; in the Daily Record here; in the Daily Express here; and in the Daily Telegraph here. This last contains the following reaction from the Scottish Government:]
A spokesman for Mr Salmond claimed the approach broke no rules and the Scottish Government was “perfectly entitled to hope for support from international stakeholders”.
He added: "Indeed, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, among many others around the world, supported this decision."
Monday, 8 October 2012
Salmond sought Trump support for Megrahi release, claims P & J
[What follows is the online trailer for a news story in today’s edition of The Press and Journal, a daily newspaper circulating in the Aberdeeen area:]
Alex Salmond wanted Donald Trump to publicly back the release of the Lockerbie bomber in an attempt to ease the international pressure on his government, the Press and Journal can reveal today.
The first minister turned to the US billionaire for help amid the transatlantic fallout caused by the decision to free Abdelbaset al Megrahi in August 2009.
The pair had been on good terms at the time, not long after the Scottish Government had called in and approved plans for the businessman’s £750million Aberdeenshire golf resort.
For the full story, pick up a copy of today’s Press and Journal or read our digital edition now.
[The idea that a wily politician such as our First Minister could ever have believed for a millisecond that the support of Donald Trump would sway opinion anywhere in the world in favour of the decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds strikes me as inherently improbable.
The story has now been picked up on the BBC News website.]
Alex Salmond wanted Donald Trump to publicly back the release of the Lockerbie bomber in an attempt to ease the international pressure on his government, the Press and Journal can reveal today.
The first minister turned to the US billionaire for help amid the transatlantic fallout caused by the decision to free Abdelbaset al Megrahi in August 2009.
The pair had been on good terms at the time, not long after the Scottish Government had called in and approved plans for the businessman’s £750million Aberdeenshire golf resort.
For the full story, pick up a copy of today’s Press and Journal or read our digital edition now.
[The idea that a wily politician such as our First Minister could ever have believed for a millisecond that the support of Donald Trump would sway opinion anywhere in the world in favour of the decision to release Mr Megrahi on compassionate grounds strikes me as inherently improbable.
The story has now been picked up on the BBC News website.]
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Career prosecutors as law officers have destroyed criminal justice system
[This is the headline over a letter in today’s edition of The Herald from Jock Thomson QC. It reads as follows:]
I see from the Scottish Legal News that Lady Stacey is to preside over a high-powered debate on the abolition of corroboration organised by the Scottish Association for the Study of Offending.
The outcome will be academic since Lord Carloway already has the green light – as ever, the devil will be in the detail.
History will show that the genesis of the destruction of our criminal justice system was the appointment of career prosecutors as law officers: beginning with (now) Dame Elish Angiolini QC as Solicitor General and continuing with a succession of senior members of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) since who have become and will remain Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for the foreseeable future.
This has led to the unholy, unhealthy alliance of law officers and law makers: Kenny MacAskill and Frank Mulholland, in the same bed. There is no separation of powers. Constitutionally the system now is morally and mortally flawed.
The fall-out from Cadder led to the knee-jerk Cadder Reforms. Ms Angiolini's furore about lack of convictions in rape cases, many of which should never have been raised in the first place, led Mr MacAskill to appoint Lord Carloway to consider whether the law should be amended to abolish the need for corroboration. The current Lord Advocate wants to do away with the accused's right to silence and the logical follow-on from that will be to make the accused a compellable witness. Will the next inexorable draconian step be the replacement of the presumption of innocence with that of a presumption of guilt? It's beginning to look that way. And by that time there may be little or no Criminal Legal Aid.
[Here is something I wrote on this blog on 19 May 2011, when the present Lord Advocate’s appointment was announced:]
This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).
The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.
I see from the Scottish Legal News that Lady Stacey is to preside over a high-powered debate on the abolition of corroboration organised by the Scottish Association for the Study of Offending.
The outcome will be academic since Lord Carloway already has the green light – as ever, the devil will be in the detail.
History will show that the genesis of the destruction of our criminal justice system was the appointment of career prosecutors as law officers: beginning with (now) Dame Elish Angiolini QC as Solicitor General and continuing with a succession of senior members of Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) since who have become and will remain Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for the foreseeable future.
This has led to the unholy, unhealthy alliance of law officers and law makers: Kenny MacAskill and Frank Mulholland, in the same bed. There is no separation of powers. Constitutionally the system now is morally and mortally flawed.
The fall-out from Cadder led to the knee-jerk Cadder Reforms. Ms Angiolini's furore about lack of convictions in rape cases, many of which should never have been raised in the first place, led Mr MacAskill to appoint Lord Carloway to consider whether the law should be amended to abolish the need for corroboration. The current Lord Advocate wants to do away with the accused's right to silence and the logical follow-on from that will be to make the accused a compellable witness. Will the next inexorable draconian step be the replacement of the presumption of innocence with that of a presumption of guilt? It's beginning to look that way. And by that time there may be little or no Criminal Legal Aid.
[Here is something I wrote on this blog on 19 May 2011, when the present Lord Advocate’s appointment was announced:]
This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).
The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue.
Thursday, 4 October 2012
"It’s a long process but I’m not giving up" says Lord Advocate
[What follows is the Lockerbie portion of an article reporting on an exclusive interview given by Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland QC, to the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser:]
A steely determination to seek the truth and deliver justice has catapulted Coatbridge-born Frank Mulholland to the powerful top law post in Scotland of Lord Advocate.
And in an exclusive interview with the Advertiser this week, the nation’s top prosecutor reveals his views on the Lockerbie bombing (...)
The 53-year-old former St Bernard’s Primary and St Columba’s High School pupil told how he will not give up on the Lockerbie bombing investigation (...)
Mr Mulholland travelled to Libya in April with the director of the FBI Robert Mueller to discuss opportunities for stepping up the probe into the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people.
He said: “Going to Libya was the right thing to do.
“The Interim Prime Minister made very helpful statements regarding co-operation.
“I was looked after by a lot of good people and felt safe under their security.
“I would go back if there was good reason to do so and if my visit was not putting others at risk.
“It’s a long process but I’m not giving up. A lot of people lost their lives.”
[Be assured, Mr Mulholland, Justice for Megrahi is not giving up either, notwithstanding Crown Office bluster.]
A steely determination to seek the truth and deliver justice has catapulted Coatbridge-born Frank Mulholland to the powerful top law post in Scotland of Lord Advocate.
And in an exclusive interview with the Advertiser this week, the nation’s top prosecutor reveals his views on the Lockerbie bombing (...)
The 53-year-old former St Bernard’s Primary and St Columba’s High School pupil told how he will not give up on the Lockerbie bombing investigation (...)
Mr Mulholland travelled to Libya in April with the director of the FBI Robert Mueller to discuss opportunities for stepping up the probe into the 1988 bombing, which killed 270 people.
He said: “Going to Libya was the right thing to do.
“The Interim Prime Minister made very helpful statements regarding co-operation.
“I was looked after by a lot of good people and felt safe under their security.
“I would go back if there was good reason to do so and if my visit was not putting others at risk.
“It’s a long process but I’m not giving up. A lot of people lost their lives.”
[Be assured, Mr Mulholland, Justice for Megrahi is not giving up either, notwithstanding Crown Office bluster.]
Lockerbie: would you convict?
[This is the headline over an article in today’s edition of the Maltese newspaper The Times by Robert Forrester, secretary of Justice for Megrahi. It reads as follows:]
Tragedy is not like smokeless fuel. With tragedy comes victims, it is part of the very essence of the word. The problem with Lockerbie is that the roll call of victims does not begin and end with those who died that night, but with their families and friends, whose suffering never dies.
The manner in which the Scottish criminal justice system dealt with the case actually increased the number of victims.
The very structure of the stage upon which justice performed at Camp Zeist, one where the Crown played the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury, lent itself to potential disaster.
And so it happened their Lordships convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi wholly on the basis of surmise: not evidence but conjecture.
They concluded that he had somehow contrived to have an unaccompanied, bronze-coloured, hardshell Samsonite suitcase containing a bomb travel undetected to Heathrow via Luqa and Frankfurt airports. Well, of course it was undetected, in evidential terms it never existed, except in the minds of the three Zeist judges when this scheme of things was planted there by the Crown as prosecutor.
By complete contrast, there is concrete eyewitness and documentary evidence for there having been a break-in at Heathrow, which gave access to 103’s loading bay at Terminal 3, only hours prior to the fateful departure.
Moreover, there is also eyewitness testimony to the effect that an unexplained suitcase answering to the above description was observed lying at the bottom of the container in which the explosion took place before the arrival of the Frankfurt feeder flight. This case was not pulled to be checked.
The evidence concerning the break-in was not made public until after the court had convicted Mr Megrahi, and that concerning the sighting in the container was simply breezed over at Zeist as if some minor irritant hardly worth bothering about.
Added to this of course, once the testimony of Abd al-Majid Giaka on the happenings at Luqa had been thrown out of court, we have the role played by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci. Laying aside the fact that the court was kept in the dark about allegations that he received $2,000,000, and his brother $1,000,000, from the US Department of Justice, the three judges were at pains to make allowances for shortcomings in his evidence.
Respected, academic, psychological tests have demonstrated that the accuracy of eyewitness identification of individuals beyond a period of 11 months from the initial event is reduced to a matter of chance.
While the parade at Zeist came over a decade later, Mr Gauci had been privy to contemporary photographs of Mr Megrahi shortly before it. Even so, the best he could do in court was to say that Mr Megrahi “resembles” the man in question. Hardly the stuff of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Since the justice campaign went political in 2008, the Scottish Government has provided the judiciary with extraordinary powers which could easily result in any further appeal being rejected.
Having said that though, the likelihood of the Megrahis making an application at the moment is very slim.
The supposedly “live” investigation (previously being run by one solitary police officer) which took Scotland’s Lord Advocate to Libya in the company of the Director of the FBI only to come home with a “no comment”, and which has now embarked on in camera hearings on Malta in an attempt to salvage a conviction, seems to be getting perilously close to unravelling.
Will the Valletta jaunt elicit yet another “no comment” from the Crown?
It is a perfectly natural, defensive, animal instinct for an institution, even for many institutions acting quasi independently of each other, to close ranks to protect themselves and the status quo which feeds them. Although understandable, it is totally wrong. Placing to one side the most obvious victim of Zeist, Mr Megrahi, those who continue to defend the conviction by blocking any attempts to seek redress and justice ought to consider incidental victims: Kurt Maier, X-ray operator at Frankfurt whose evidence was ignored, became an alcoholic and died after being implicated by the Crown’s fantasy; the reputation of all those employees at Luqa Airport in Malta, an airport whose security regime was clearly infinitely superior to that of Heathrow, as Granada Television found to their cost; the Libyan victims of sanctions associated with the US approach to justice, and so on.
Helmut Kohl made it crystal clear there is no evidence for any bomb having been transferred in Germany.
Malta may be small but its government can have an influence out of proportion to its size as a country – even in an environment dominated by realpolitik.
Justice only need be a victim if it is allowed to become one, and campaigners have no intention of allowing that to happen any time soon.
Tragedy is not like smokeless fuel. With tragedy comes victims, it is part of the very essence of the word. The problem with Lockerbie is that the roll call of victims does not begin and end with those who died that night, but with their families and friends, whose suffering never dies.
The manner in which the Scottish criminal justice system dealt with the case actually increased the number of victims.
The very structure of the stage upon which justice performed at Camp Zeist, one where the Crown played the roles of prosecutor, judge and jury, lent itself to potential disaster.
And so it happened their Lordships convicted Abdelbaset al-Megrahi wholly on the basis of surmise: not evidence but conjecture.
They concluded that he had somehow contrived to have an unaccompanied, bronze-coloured, hardshell Samsonite suitcase containing a bomb travel undetected to Heathrow via Luqa and Frankfurt airports. Well, of course it was undetected, in evidential terms it never existed, except in the minds of the three Zeist judges when this scheme of things was planted there by the Crown as prosecutor.
By complete contrast, there is concrete eyewitness and documentary evidence for there having been a break-in at Heathrow, which gave access to 103’s loading bay at Terminal 3, only hours prior to the fateful departure.
Moreover, there is also eyewitness testimony to the effect that an unexplained suitcase answering to the above description was observed lying at the bottom of the container in which the explosion took place before the arrival of the Frankfurt feeder flight. This case was not pulled to be checked.
The evidence concerning the break-in was not made public until after the court had convicted Mr Megrahi, and that concerning the sighting in the container was simply breezed over at Zeist as if some minor irritant hardly worth bothering about.
Added to this of course, once the testimony of Abd al-Majid Giaka on the happenings at Luqa had been thrown out of court, we have the role played by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci. Laying aside the fact that the court was kept in the dark about allegations that he received $2,000,000, and his brother $1,000,000, from the US Department of Justice, the three judges were at pains to make allowances for shortcomings in his evidence.
Respected, academic, psychological tests have demonstrated that the accuracy of eyewitness identification of individuals beyond a period of 11 months from the initial event is reduced to a matter of chance.
While the parade at Zeist came over a decade later, Mr Gauci had been privy to contemporary photographs of Mr Megrahi shortly before it. Even so, the best he could do in court was to say that Mr Megrahi “resembles” the man in question. Hardly the stuff of “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Since the justice campaign went political in 2008, the Scottish Government has provided the judiciary with extraordinary powers which could easily result in any further appeal being rejected.
Having said that though, the likelihood of the Megrahis making an application at the moment is very slim.
The supposedly “live” investigation (previously being run by one solitary police officer) which took Scotland’s Lord Advocate to Libya in the company of the Director of the FBI only to come home with a “no comment”, and which has now embarked on in camera hearings on Malta in an attempt to salvage a conviction, seems to be getting perilously close to unravelling.
Will the Valletta jaunt elicit yet another “no comment” from the Crown?
It is a perfectly natural, defensive, animal instinct for an institution, even for many institutions acting quasi independently of each other, to close ranks to protect themselves and the status quo which feeds them. Although understandable, it is totally wrong. Placing to one side the most obvious victim of Zeist, Mr Megrahi, those who continue to defend the conviction by blocking any attempts to seek redress and justice ought to consider incidental victims: Kurt Maier, X-ray operator at Frankfurt whose evidence was ignored, became an alcoholic and died after being implicated by the Crown’s fantasy; the reputation of all those employees at Luqa Airport in Malta, an airport whose security regime was clearly infinitely superior to that of Heathrow, as Granada Television found to their cost; the Libyan victims of sanctions associated with the US approach to justice, and so on.
Helmut Kohl made it crystal clear there is no evidence for any bomb having been transferred in Germany.
Malta may be small but its government can have an influence out of proportion to its size as a country – even in an environment dominated by realpolitik.
Justice only need be a victim if it is allowed to become one, and campaigners have no intention of allowing that to happen any time soon.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
New evidence that puts Scottish justice on trial
John Ashton, author of Megrahi: You are my Jury, will be speaking about the book and about the Lockerbie case at the Wigtown Book Festival on Saturday, 6 October at 12 noon. What follows is taken from the entry in the festival programme:
“Even after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s death this year, debate continues to rage over his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing. John Ashton has spent years researching the case, including working for Megrahi’s legal team. He discusses his controversial book, which uses exclusive interviews with Megrahi himself, and presents compelling new evidence that puts Scottish justice on trial.”
“Even after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s death this year, debate continues to rage over his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing. John Ashton has spent years researching the case, including working for Megrahi’s legal team. He discusses his controversial book, which uses exclusive interviews with Megrahi himself, and presents compelling new evidence that puts Scottish justice on trial.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)