Susan Cohen reacts to report of Gadhafi’s death

[A report just published on the CBS New York website reads as follows:]

Ousted Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was killed when rebels stormed his hometown Thursday, according to the Libyan government.

Gadhafi was alleged to be behind the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 back in 1988.

The 747 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 people on board and 11 on the ground. The plane was bound for John F Kennedy International Airport. Among those on board was 20-year-old Theodora Cohen.

Her mother, Susan Cohen, lives in Cape May Court House, New Jersey.

“I’m just hoping, hoping it’s true,” she told CBSNewYork.com. “I’ve been waiting a long time for this. If this is true this is going to be the happiest day of my life since Dec 20, 1988. Lockerbie happened on Dec 21st. This would be a great day. A tyrant has fallen. If this is true, that is a wonderful thing.”

“I have waited many years for this,” Cohen said. “It doesn’t bring closure. Closure doesn’t exist. Closure is a myth. It will not bring closure. But it is helpful. It does bring a sense of having some justice. I can say in the morning, ‘Theo… he’s gone. He’s dead.’ There’s justice.”

Cohen applauded the recent United States operations in Libya.

“I will certainly give President Obama credit. It has been just horrible, Gadhafi has gotten away with the most horrible crimes for years,” she said.

“If this is true I want to thank the Libyan people, because they… if they had not done this, I think we would still be back in a so-called ‘alliance’ with Moammar Gadhafi. It never should’ve happened.” 

Cohen was referring to the recent warming of relations between the US and Libya, which started when the Libyan leader gave up his nuclear program during the George W Bush administration.

“You can not deal with him. You can not make deals with him. All the governments knew what was happening to the Libyan people… the human rights violations… but they turned a blind eye to  it because it was all about the oil.”

“I will be in grief, and pain and suffering for the rest of my life… but it makes a difference to know that he is gone. I hope he’s dead,” Cohen said.

[Further reactions from US relatives are to be found in this report on The Daily Beast website.  That delightful human being, Frank Duggan, president of the group Victims of Pan Am 103 Inc (not himself a Lockerbie relative) is quoted as follows:]

"May he rest in pieces. It's not just the Pan Am families who are celebrating, it's people all over the world who are glad this monster is gone."

Proceeds of Megrahi book to go to charity

[The following are excerpts from an article by Ben Borland in today’s edition of the Sunday Express:]

The publishers of Libyan bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s book are to donate all profits to charity, starting with victim support groups on both sides of the Atlantic.

Mrs [Susan] Cohen, who refused £3.1million compensation from the Gaddafi regime, calling it “blood money”, said: “If a charity accepts money it implies they are accepting the verdict of the book and it’s a kind of validation on Megrahi’s actions, so that would be deplorable.”

The book, Megrahi – You Are My Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence, promises to present “conclusive new evidence” to prove Megrahi was “an innocent victim of dirty politics and judicial folly”. He has been working on it with British author John Ashton after release back to Libya from a Scottish jail on compassionate grounds just eight years into a 27-year sentence.

Suffering from prostate cancer, he had been given three months to live. Two-and-a-half years on, the 59-year-old has promised to reveal “the truth” about the atrocity.

Mrs Cohen, at home in New Jersey, said the book “is just another part of the campaign to pretend Megrahi didn’t do it. Why should we believe anything that he says? If he is so damn sick how is he able to help with writing a book?”

Hugh Andrew, managing director of the publishers, Birlinn, said: “I understand some charities may not wish to receive money. It is entirely their call. A great deal more information has come to light since the trial.”

[Another article in the same newspaper contains the following:]

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi has been working on the autobiographical book with English author John Ashton ever since his controversial release from prison in August 2009. Edinburgh-based publisher Birlinn is to unveil Megrahi – You Are My Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence on February 28 and is planning to donate all the profits to charity.

But last night Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora was among the 270 victims of the 1988 PanAm bombing, urged charities to turn down any offer of cash from Megrahi.

“I don’t think that anyone should accept money from that man,” she said. “I don’t think any charity should take a dime, they should not be encouraging this kind of thing.

“I think it would be despicable and an insult to the people who died if a charity took money from this.”

Birlinn’s managing director Hugh Andrew confirmed that no charities had been approached so far, although victim support organisations in Britain and the United States may be given first refusal.

Mrs Cohen, who sent back £3.1million in compensation from the Gaddafi regime, describing it as “blood money”, said the plan was an attempt to “validate Megrahi’s actions”.

Speaking from her home in New Jersey, she said: “It is a whitewash. If a charity accepts money then it implies they are accepting the verdict of the book and it puts a kind of validation on Megrahi’s actions, so that would be deplorable.

“I don’t want to come out against publishers and people have a right to decide what they want to read. But if any charity is offered money from this I would urge them to turn it down.”

The new book promises to present “conclusive new evidence” to prove Megrahi was “an innocent victim of dirty politics, a flawed investigation and judicial folly”.

In it, Megrahi will claim to reveal for the first time “how I came to be blamed for Britain’s worst mass murder, my nightmare decade in prison and the truth about my controversial release”.

However, Mrs Cohen dismissed the claims as “self-serving” and also criticised Mr Ashton, who worked for Megrahi’s defence team and has written extensively about the Libyan’s innocence.

She said: “I don’t think he can be in any way an objective person, given his very close ties to the former Libyan regime. It is just another part of the campaign to pretend that Megrahi didn’t do it.

“Why should we believe anything that Megrahi says? If he had anything to reveal, he should have revealed it at the trial.

“It won’t bring my daughter back but it would help if there were no more of these things which are self-serving and only cause confusion. And also, if he is so damn sick how is he able to help write a book?”

Megrahi was reckoned to be just three months away from dying of  prostate cancer when he was freed by Justice Secretary Kenny Mac-Askill 30 months ago. At the time, eight years into a 27-year sentence, he was part-way through an appeal granted after the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission ruled that his conviction may have been unsafe.

Hugh Andrew, Birlinn’s managing director, yesterday defended his decision to publish the 59-year-old father of five’s memoirs.

He said: “We will make the offer to various charities and I understand perfectly well that some may not wish to receive money, it is entirely their call.

“It would be inappropriate for us to make any profit out of this book and we are not seeking to make any. Megrahi himself will receive no money at all.

“I absolutely defend our right to publish this book. It is not a statement on his innocence or guilt but he has the right to have his case in the public domain.

“A great deal more information has come to light since the trial.”

[John Ashton's response to the Sunday Express articles has now been posted on the Megrahi: You are my Jury website. It can be read here. What follows is one brief extract:]

“Why should we believe anything that Megrahi says? If he had anything to reveal, he should have revealed it at the trial.”

It’s a fair point: on the advice of his lawyers, Abdelbaset opted not to give evidence at trial (a decision he regretted, although it’s debatable that the outcome would have been any different if he had decided differently). The book presents the account that he would have given at trial and leaves it to the readers to judge. Moreover, it presents a great deal of evidence that the court never heard, much of which was concealed from the defence by the Crown.

Predictable American reaction solicited to James Robertson story

[Today’s edition of the Sunday Post contains an article headlined Mother’s fury over Lockerbie story, in which Susan Cohen reacts predictably to James Robertson’s recent jeu d’esprit.  The article reads as follows:]

The mum of a Lockerbie bombing victim has slammed a top author after he appeared to mock the law chief who led the investigation into the atrocity.

Best-selling Scots writer James Robertson has campaigned in the past to clear the name of the only man convicted of the terrorist attack, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

Last week — to coincide with the second anniversary of Al-Megrahi’s death in Tripoli — the writer published a short story charting the appearance of “Lord Cummerbund” at an inquiry examining the questionable conviction of “Henry Ingram”.

The character is clearly based on the late Lord Fraser of Carmylie, who as Lord Advocate brought the case against Al-Megrahi.

Four years after the conviction Lord Fraser, who died at home in Arbroath last June aged 68, cast doubt on the reliability of the main prosecution witness, Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who had sold the clothing used to pack the suitcase containing the bomb, labelling him “an apple short of a picnic”.

In the tale Lord Cummerbund, the “former most senior law officer of the land”, is asked about evidence given by a key witness in the case. He describes it as “crucial” to the conviction even though the witness was, he says, “as thick as two short planks”.

Asked why he “continues to disparage this witness, without whose evidence the guilty verdict could not have been reached”, he responds: “Oh, come on, it’s all over now. We all know Ingram did it.”

Last year, the award-winning author released The Professor of Truth, billed as “inspired by the Lockerbie Bombing”.

It told the story of a university lecturer whose wife and daughter died in the terrorist atrocity in 1988, mirroring the life of Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims. But the story prompted a furious backlash by many of the Lockerbie families.

Last night, Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora, 20, was on board the Pan Am 103 flight, said: “There’s a sizeable pro-Gaddaffi faction in Scotland, including people like James Robertson.

“I’ve read this story and apart from it being an unflattering reflection of the man who headed up the investigation it’s part of a creeping assertion that Megrahi is innocent.

“Conspiracy theories are always more interesting than the mundane truth.”

Mr Robertson was unavailable for comment.

[Journalists who feel the need to write such a “Lockerbie families outrage” story when scepticism is expressed over the Megrahi conviction know that they can always rely on Susan Cohen to oblige. They also know that they won’t get such outrage and fury from UK Lockerbie relatives which, presumably, is why they don’t go to them for quotes.]

Death announced of Dan Cohen

[What follows is the text of a death notice published today on the website of the Press of Atlantic City:]

Cohen, Daniel E, - 82, of Cape May Court House, NJ, died May 6, 2018. He was born in Chicago, IL and lived in New York City and Port Jervis, NY before moving to Cape May County in 1993. Dan worked as a freelance writer and wrote over 200 books including children's books on subjects such as the occult, mythology, ghosts, and dinosaurs. He and his wife Susan were founders of the Caper's Sherlock Holmes Society in Cape May County and active members of the Wodehouse Society, especially the Philadelphia Chapter. He loved his clumber spaniels, cats, bird watching, and walking on the beach. He is the father of Theodora Cohen, age 20, who was killed on Pan Am Flight 103 in the Lockerbie Bombing. He and his wife were very active in the fight for justice for the 243 victim's families. Daniel is survived by his wife Susan (formerly Handler); sister Jean Fuller of Lake Oswego, OR; and several nieces, nephews, and cousins. Services are private.

[RB: A longer obituary, with details of the views about the Lockerbie case held by Mr Cohen and his wife Susan, can be found here in The New York Times.]

Lockerbie extradition suggestion ‘was utter nonsense’

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

The leading expert on the Lockerbie trial has accused the US ambassador to Britain of talking “utter nonsense” by saying America could have sought extradition of those involved in the bombing.

Robert Black, the professor who was instrumental in enabling the Lockerbie trial to be held at Camp Zeist in Holland, ridiculed the whole idea of extradition.

US Ambassador Louis B Susman said the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi strained relations between the US and Scotland but caused no lasting damage.

He told BBC Scotland: “We never anticipated his release. I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on.”

He added: “Good friends disagree. I compare it sometimes to a marriage.”

Mr Susman was speaking during his first official visit to Scotland. Mr Salmond hosted a reception where the ambassador launched an exchange programme to strengthen links between the countries.

Professor Black said: “If the ambassador is talking about the period before Zeist, the US did ask Libya to extradite Megrahi and Fhimah, but there was no extradition treaty between the US and Libya and never the slightest possi-bility that extradition would be effected voluntarily.”

If the ambassador was referring to the period after Megrahi’s conviction, his comment was “utter nonsense” because none of the diplomacy would have worked.

[The last sentence does not accurately reflect what I said. As I pointed out on this blog yesterday, if extradition had been sought after Mr Megrahi was convicted the application would have been summarily dismissed by the Scottish courts because there was no warrant for it in the legislation governing extradition.

The report on the issue in The Times contains the following:

'Mr Susman said in a television interview: “We never anticipated his release. If we had thought he would be released we would have asked for extradition early on.” (...)

'However, Mr Susman’s view was challenged last night by Scottish legal experts and politicians who pointed out that although many of the Lockerbie victims were American citizens, the crime had taken place over Scottish soil, and therefore al-Megrahi could not have stood trial in the US. [RB: The aircraft was registered in the United States and 189 of those who died were US citizens. There was accordingly never any legal doubt that the accused could have been tried in the United States. The problem was that there was no US-Libya extradition treaty and never the remotest chance that the suspects would be handed over voluntarily into US hands.]

'Given the poor relations between Colonel Gaddafi’s regime and the US Government at the time, there was never any chance, they said, that the Libyans would have allowed al-Megrahi to be tried in the US. They also pointed out that the international agreement that allowed al-Megrahi’s trial to go ahead in the Netherlands stipulated that any sentence handed down by the Scottish court would be served in Scotland.

'However, they added that Mr Susman’s comments may reflect the continuing anger felt in Washington and among victims’ relatives who say that they were repeatedly promised by the British Government that al-Megrahi would serve out his sentence in Scotland.

'Scottish opposition parties that opposed the release criticised Mr Susman’s views. The Scottish Tories said that while the decision to release al-Megrahi was “profoundly wrong”, it was a matter for Scotland. The Liberal Democrats agreed, saying: “Given that one of the fundamental principles of Scots law is that somebody cannot be tried for the same crime twice, it’s difficult to see what case the US Government could have put for extradition.”'

The report in The Scotsman contains the following:

'"We never anticipated his release," said Mr Susman. "I think if we ever thought we had a release, we probably would have asked for extradition early on." (...)

'But Professor Robert Black, who was one of the architects of the Camp Zeist agreement which saw Megrahi handed over by the Libyans for trial in 2000, described the comments as "utter rubbish".

'"The Americans know that Libya would never have handed over Mr Megrahi for trial in America," he said. (...)

'Susan Cohen, an American whose daughter was killed in the attack, said: "I always thought we should have gone for extradition. Events proved me right."'

RB: After the announcement in Scotland and in the United States in November 1991 that charges had been brought against Megrahi and Fhimah, both countries sought the extradition of the suspects through diplomatic channels. The US did, in Susan Cohen's words, "go for extradition". These attempts, however, failed. That was precisely the reason for the moves, in which I played a part, to set up a Scottish non-jury court in the Netherlands which might induce the suspects to surrender voluntarily for trial.]

Writer Alexander Cockburn infuriates US Lockerbie relatives

[In the 7 May 2001 edition of The Nation an article by Alexander Cockburn appeared entitled Justice Scotched in Lockerbie Trial. It is well worth reading. However, it infuriated certain American Lockerbie relatives. What follows are their letters of complaint and Alexander Cockburn’s response, as published in the edition of The Nation published on 18 June 2001:]

Alexander Cockburn should show respect for, and knowledge of, the facts. In his May 7 "Beat the Devil" column, "Justice Scotched in Lockerbie Trial," he shows neither.

He starts by praising a report critical of the trial presented to a conference of the Arab League by Hans Koechler, whom he describes as "a distinguished Austrian philosopher." Distinguished for what? Certainly not for his knowledge of Scottish law. Koechler's report is bizarre. He doesn't even seem to know that in a Scottish court the judges do not introduce evidence. Koechler proposes that there was a conspiracy to convict Libyans, which included the United States, Britain, the Scottish court and even the Libyans' defense lawyers. Koechler has wandered out onto the grassy knoll, and Cockburn is trotting right along behind him.

Koechler was "one of five international observers at the trial" appointed by Kofi Annan. He was a representative of something called the International Progress Organization. A second observer appointed from the same organization was Robert Thabit. Koechler acknowledges that he worked with Thabit. Shortly before his appointment as trial observer Thabit had been a lawyer for Libya's UN mission. Cockburn was either unaware of this or just forgot to mention it.

Cockburn characterizes the testimony of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci--who was supposed to identify one of the accused Libyans as the man who bought clothes found in the bomb bag in his shop--as so confused he could barely recognize the accused when he was pointed out in court. We would bet a considerable sum that Cockburn didn't see the Gauci testimony. We did. He was an excellent witness, clearly a man trying his best to accurately describe an event that had taken place over a decade earlier. Not only did he point out the accused Libyan in court, he picked him out of a lineup ("parade," the Scots call it) shortly before the trial opened. In 1991 Gauci picked out a photo of the accused as the man resembling the purchaser of the clothes from twelve photos shown him. Earlier, in 1989, Gauci assisted a police artist in preparing a sketch and in compiling an image of the purchaser. Both images looked strikingly like the accused Libyan looked at the time. This also seems to have escaped Cockburn's notice.

Cockburn says that prosecutors produced "a document" indicating that a bag from Air Malta was loaded onto Pan Am 103 at Frankfurt. Actually, there were two documents: They were the baggage-loading records from Frankfurt. Cockburn counters that there was "firm evidence from the defense" that all bags from the Air Malta flight had been accounted for. The defense presented no evidence at all on that point. It just said that all the bags had been accounted for, and even Cockburn must be aware that evidence is not what comes out of a lawyer's mouth.

That's an impressive number of errors for a short column. The Lockerbie trial was long and complicated, and there was a ton of evidence. Cockburn may know this, but he doesn't care. He appears to believe that if there is evil in the world, the United States is behind it. He can truly paraphrase "the terrible Lord Braxfield": "Let them bring me Americans, and I'll fiddle the facts."

DANIEL COHEN SUSAN COHEN

Parents of Theodora Cohen, murdered in the terrorist bombing of Pam Am 103

I don't expect to agree with every Nation article, but I do expect meticulously accurate facts. I can address only some of Alexander Cockburn's most flagrant falsifications here. He thinks "the prosecution's case absolutely depended on proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes" used in the lethal suitcase from a Maltese shop owner. He also claims that "in nineteen separate statements to police prior to the trial the shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, had failed to make a positive identification of Megrahi" and that "Gauci was asked five times if he recognized anyone in the courtroom. No answer. Finally, the exasperated prosecutor pointed [out the accused].... 'the best that Gauci could do was to mumble that 'he resembled him.'"

Gauci did not mumble when he identified Megrahi--the first time he was asked to do so in court. The only number five that can reliably be associated with Megrahi is the number 5 he wore in the police lineup in April 1999 when Gauci pointed him out as the man who came into his shop in December 1988. The number nineteen is the number of photographs Gauci was initially asked to look at on September 14, 1999, in police headquarters in Floriana, Malta. As for the correct number of times Gauci actually met with police and looked at photographs, according to the Opinion of the Court, it seems to be six.

What is Cockburn's source? My sources for the facts are: the transcript of the testimony Gauci gave on July 11, 2000; the Opinion of the Court delivered by Lord Sutherland on January 31, 2001; my transcribed remarks of a speech Alistair Campbell, QC, gave when he spoke to the US families in Baltimore on March 5, 2001, during the posttrial briefings of the crown team; and the recollections of other family members who heard that testimony.

Cockburn seems unaware that the prosecution's case against Megrahi was also based on the coded passport issued to him by the Libyan Security Service, the ESO, for which Megrahi worked; the tickets for every flight he took; the records of every hotel he stayed at in Malta in December 1988. Nor does he seem aware that the prosecution team was able to use Megrahi's own words against him by playing the film interview he gave to Pierre Salinger in 1991, in which he lied about his ESO membership and denied staying in the Holiday Inn, Malta, December 20, 1988. Megrahi used his false passport five times in 1987. The next time he used it was December 20-21, 1988, to travel to and from Malta and Tripoli. He never used it again.

I have a passionate need to see justice done in the murder of my husband, Tony Hawkins, and 269 other souls. The evidence as revealed in the Lockerbie trial has convinced me that: 1. The debris trail from Lockerbie leads to Libya; 2. These two men are guilty of assembling the bomb and starting it on its journey; 3. They were not mere soldiers taking the rap for the higher-ups; 4. That of the two, Megrahi was clearly in charge of this operation, Fhimah providing the necessary assistance and access to Air Malta; 5. They clearly did not act on their own without the complete assistance and approval of the Libyan government, i.e., Qaddafi.

What was incomprehensible was not the guilty verdict but the not guilty verdict. It should have been not proven. The case against Fhimah was not as strong as that against Megrahi. I don't know who Cockburn believes to be responsible for this act of terrorism, but he shouldn't use his column to create confusion about this case or to increase the suffering of the families who are still fighting for justice for the people they love.

HELEN ENGELHARDT

Editor, Truth Quest (newsletter published by The Victims of Pan Am Flight 103)

COCKBURN REPLIES

For years the Cohens described the Scottish media in extremely unflattering terms, sending multiple faxes to editors if they even suspected a publication was going to challenge "the official version." Thus, in July 1991, they protested the possible inclusion of the Syrian flag among those of other Gulf War coalition members at a Washington victory parade, on the grounds that the Syrian government had murdered their daughter (the favored line of official US leakers at that time). When Washington decided to shift the blame to Libya they became no less clamant in their denunciations of Qaddafi and indeed of anyone, like distinguished Scottish law professor Robert Black, who attempted to negotiate an agreement under which the two Libyans could stand trial in a neutral country. Certainly, the group of US relatives suing Libya for some $4 billion as responsible for the bombing has every reason to dislike any questioning of the verdict.

Hans Koechler is indeed a distinguished Austrian philosopher who by now probably knows a lot more about Scottish law than the Cohens. Those sitting through the entire trial in Zeist, Holland (which the Cohens, contrary to their misleading insinuation, attended a relatively sparse number of times), recall that Koechler was present for almost the entire proceedings. Thus Koechler may know, as the Cohens do not, that while Scottish judges cannot introduce evidence, they can rule on what evidence is or is not admitted.

Less prejudiced critics might pause to reflect that, since they had brought the indictments, there obviously was a conspiracy by the US and British governments to convict the Libyans. Collusion in such an agreement by the judges and the defense, William Taylor QC (counsel for Megrahi), can only be inferred, but it is not absurd for Koechler to make that inference. The judges found Megrahi guilty solely on the basis of some very shaky circumstantial evidence, and the normally tigerish Taylor, in the opinion of many legal observers, put up an astonishingly feeble performance in his crucial cross-examination of Tony Gauci, the only witness who could link Megrahi to the suitcase bomb. Nevertheless, Gauci was hardly "an excellent witness." Engelhardt has no basis in claiming only six meetings between police and Gauci, who was interviewed by innumerable Scottish, US and Maltese law enforcement groups, as well as prosecution and defense lawyers. On a reasonable count, the number of such interviews goes well into the double digits. The judges themselves admitted in their verdict, "On the matter of identification of the first accused, there are undoubtedly problems," and "We accept of course that he never made what could be described as an absolutely positive identification."

In fact, when Gauci gave evidence on July 11 last year, he was asked several times by the crown counsel if he could identify anyone in the court as the man who had bought the clothes from his shop that were later found in the suitcase containing the bomb. He failed to do so, and only when asked if the person sitting next to the policeman in the dock was the man in question did he grudgingly reply: "He resembles him a lot." On an earlier occasion, when shown a photograph of Mohammed Abu Talb, a Palestinian terrorist whom the defense contended was the real bomber, Gauci used almost the same words, declaring, according to his brother, that Talb "resembles" the clothes buyer "a lot." Gauci's identification of Megrahi at the identity parade just before the opening of the trial was with the words "not exactly the man I saw in the shop. Ten years ago I saw him, but the man who look [sic] a little bit like is the number 5" (Megrahi).

It is highly likely that the evidence of identification of Megrahi, its unsatisfactory nature and the comments by the trial judges will bulk large in the appeal this coming fall. However Gauci's testimony may have later appeared in a transcript or on a video recording, two relatives who were physically present at the courtroom testimony have confided that they found Gauci far from confident in his identification.

Whether Megrahi had a false passport, or stayed in Maltese hotels, or was there on December 20-21, 1988, is irrelevant--grassy knoll territory, if you will. Is there evidence that links him to the bomb? That's the sole pertinent issue. That's why Gauci's testimony is crucial. As I noted above, even the judges admitted that identification was squishy. As for Fhimah, the judges would doubtless have preferred to opt for a "not proven" verdict, but there was no evidence of any sort against him, apart from testimony of the prosecution's supergrass Giaka, who was on the CIA's payroll before, during and after the bombing, but who failed to mention the alleged role of Megrahi and Fhimah in the bombing to his paymasters until 1991. Even the judges called him a liar. The prosecution described Fhimah in indictments and thereafter, up until almost the end of the trial, as a Libyan intelligence agent, then dropped the accusation.

As far as the baggage is concerned, the prosecution's sole achievement was to demonstrate that it was theoretically possible for a bag from the Air Malta flight to have found its way onto the Pan Am flight from Frankfurt to London that connected to Flight 103. The fact remains that there is no conclusive evidence that this transfer occurred. When Granada TV broadcast a documentary asserting such a transfer as a fact, Air Malta sued and extracted damages.

ALEXANDER COCKBURN

'Despicable' Lockerbie play had to be made

[This is the headline over a report published yesterday on the website of the Alloa Advertiser.  It reads as follows:]

The director of an Alloa play branded "despicable" by a woman whose daughter was murdered in the Lockerbie atrocity says he respects her view - but believes he was right to make the production.

Alan Clark's The Lockerbie Bomber, which depicts convicted and now deceased Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi as a victim, goes on show next week at the Alman Theatre amid a storm of controversy.

Its story centres on a belief held by many - including another victim's father - that Megrahi was wrongly held responsible for the 1988 terrorist attack on Pan Am flight 103 from London to New York, which killed 270 people.

However, that view was met with revulsion last week by American Susan Cohen (74), whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora perished in the blast.

She said, "Megrahi murdered my daughter - he's not a victim. It is repulsive to put Theodora's name in with his. Does he have any idea how horrible that is to the families?

"It's despicable and so insulting to those who lost relatives."

Speaking to the Advertiser, Alan (59), who wrote the play under the pseudonym of Kenneth N Ross, was at pains to stress that he sympathised with Susan's grief.

It is his belief, though, that Megrahi, who died of cancer in May 2012 almost three years after he was granted compassionate release from prison in Scotland, was the victim of a cover-up - and he hopes his play will cast a new light on to the matter.

Alan said, "I am so sorry for Mrs Cohen's loss. She clearly believes Megrahi was guilty as charged and I respect that view. She obviously wants closure and doesn't want this painful memory opened up again.

"However, the verdict now looks increasingly flawed and I hope that the play casts some light on this evidence. I hope it leads to a public enquiry into the prosecution of the case and the evidence suppressed and tampered with."

Alan was inspired to write the story after Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill declared on Megrahi's release that he "now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die".

Alan, from Larbert, said, "It sounded biblical. I wondered if it was all as it seemed. I came with an open mind and thought Megrahi must be guilty. He was convicted - surely they got it right. The more I delved, the more I thought it was strange and could make an interesting play."

The director, who has acted and directed with Falkirk's Tryst Theatre for around 20 years, took six months to finish the play - from the initial idea to the final 14th draft.

He managed to obtain authentic props from a disused Boeing 747 at Prestwick Airport and on Googling the plane's reference number was shocked to find out that it was a sister Pan Am of the Lockerbie one that crashed.

The harrowing play is set in the present day and looks at the tragedy from three different perspectives - a victim's family, journalists investigating the case, and the UK and US security services engaged in covering up what happened.

Grangemouth, Greenock, Glasgow and Guantanamo Bay are cleverly linked in the gritty and fast-moving 75-minute piece.

The play highlights several questions in the Megrahi case - including a claim that evidence was suppressed following an alleged break-in at the Heathrow baggage area 16 hours before take-off, and further theories that a fragment of the bomb found at Lockerbie did not come from a batch of timers sold to Libya in 1985, and how the Scottish criminal cases review commission found six separate grounds of appeal.

Alan's compelling writing also puts a spotlight on Maltese storekeeper Tony Gauci - a crucial witness for the prosecution who testified that he had sold Megrahi the clothing later found in the remains of the suitcase bomb.

At the trial, Gauci was said to have appeared uncertain about the exact date he sold the clothes in question, and was not entirely sure that it was Megrahi to whom they were sold.

Gauci was the only witness to link Megrahi directly to the improvised explosive device (IED) and it was later reported in October 2007 that he received a $2 million reward for testifying.

Alan added, "I personally believe Megrahi was set up and there's been a miscarriage of justice. Sooner or later, to protect itself, the Scottish Government will have to cast the Crown Office adrift and abandon the fiction that Megrahi's conviction is safe."

Falkirk's Tryst Theatre presents The Lockerbie Bomber at the Alman's Coach House Theatre, Alloa, from January 17-19 at 8pm. Tickets are £10 and are available from the Alman Box Office on 07929 561331.

[A review of the premiere of this play can be read here.]

Here's to 2013 and to getting to the truth behind Lockerbie

[I wish a very happy New Year to all readers of this blog.  Here is what my friend Auntie Jo posted a few hours ago on the Friends of Justice for Megrahi Facebook page:]

A Happy Hogmanay from Scotland and a Happy New Year when the bells strike twelve. Here's to 2013 and to getting to the truth behind Lockerbie. We are making progress. Let's all decide what we can do as individuals to take forward the work of JFM. Let's storm our MSPs and MPs, let's challenge the media for allowing the clear evidence challenging that flawed verdict to be cast aside. Let's take them on. It can be done. Thank you to JFM for the efforts you make to keep those of us out here informed and right behind you! And thank you for these pages where we have met up with others from all over the place who share a common aim: justice. We know how much of your personal time that takes up and we are grateful. You have the Crown Office on the run and a Justice Minister who can't cope with the prospect of facing you up front. That means you are doing something right. You have all of them rattled. Together in 2013 we can all rattle them a bit more! To all: Slainte!

[And here are two snippets from today’s newspapers, catching up on the recent story in Scotland on Sunday and on Alan Clark’s play The Lockerbie Bomber:]

Families of Lockerbie bombing victims have accused a Scots author of being a “cheerleader” for the man convicted of the terrorist atrocity.

Best-selling writer James Robertson has campaigned to clear the name of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

And his latest novel, which is billed as being “inspired by the Lockerbie bombing”, tells the story of a university lecturer whose wife and daughter are killed in the terrorist atrocity in 1988.

The story mirrors the life of Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was one of the 270 victims.

American relatives of some of the victims claim Robertson is part of a “cottage industry of deniers” about Megrahi.

Frank Duggan, of the US-based Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, said: “If the book is inspired by the Lockerbie bombing and the author believes Megrahi was not guilty, it will not rise to the top of my reading list.

“I guess James Robertson takes the position that it was not Megrahi but some other Libyans who were guilty.” (...) [RB: I suspect that Mr Duggan’s guess is as misconceived as most of his Lockerbie statements.]

Robertson was unavailable for comment about his novel The Professor of Truth, which is out in June.

But he is convinced Megrahi was the victim of a miscarriage of justice. -- Daily Record

A furious mum whose daughter was among the Lockerbie death toll has hit out at a play which makes the bomber a VICTIM of the airplane terror blast.

Outraged Susan Cohen, 74, branded writer Alan Clark’s show “despicable” for its claim that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted in a cover-up over the murderous atrocity.

A total of 270 people, including 20-year-old American Theodora, were killed when Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the sky over the Dumfries-shire town in 1988.

But Clark includes Libyan Megrahi’s name in a dedication to the casualties of the horror attack.

Shaken Susan, of New Jersey in the US, said: “Megrahi murdered my daughter — he’s not a victim. It is repulsive to put Theodora’s name in with his.”

“Does he have any idea how horrible that is to the families? It’s despicable and so insulting to those who lost relatives.” Clark — who writes under the name Kenneth N Ross — directs and stars in the drama at Alloa’s Alman Theatre next month.

The plot centres on bereaved parents, investigative journalists and US government officers whose lives have all been affected by the bombing.

Clark, 59, of Larbert, Stirlingshire, insisted he hopes his debut play will help fuel calls for a public inquiry. He said: “I started with an open mind but after a year of painstaking research I came to the conclusion Megrahi was set up.

“The play is dedicated to the victims of the outrage and their families. I believe Megrahi is the 271st victim so he is included.” (...)

Clark’s play is backed by Dr Jim Swire, 76, whose daughter Flora died in the attack and who has campaigned for Megrahi’s conviction to be overturned.

He said: “I welcome the play as it tries to shed light on what happened when the investigation went off the rails. I believe Megrahi was wrongly identified.” -- The Sun

Megrahi's family "to sue for false imprisonment"

The family of released Lockerbie bomber Abdulbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi is preparing to sue Britain for false imprisonment, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi claimed last night.

The Libyan leader said Megrahi remained “very ill” with prostate cancer following his controversial release by the Scottish Government on compassionate grounds in August last year, and blamed his poor health on intentional “neglect” he suffered in prison.

Col Gaddafi said his family will mount a compensation claim once the 58-year-old dies.

“After he passes away his family will demand compensation because he was deliberately neglected in prison,” he said.

“His health was not looked after in prison, and he didn’t have any periodic examinations. I wish him a long life. He was released because he was considered dead, and yet he was still alive.”

Col Gaddafi made the claims during a speech to students and staff at the London School of Economics (LSE) via a live video-link, which is understood to have been organised through his son Saif Al-Gaddafi who has a doctorate from the university.

The compensation claim could run into several million pounds, according to Libyan diplomatic officials who attended the talk.

Col Gaddafi alleged that the case against the former intelligence agent had “been fabricated and created by” former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher and former US President Ronald Reagan.

He even suggested that CIA agents had been behind the 1988 terrorist atrocity, in which 270 people were killed after a Pan Am airline blew up over Scotland.

“These are the people who created this conspiracy,” said Col Gaddafi, referring to Lady Thatcher’s and Mr Reagan’s alleged role in a Megrahi's murder conviction and life sentence over the attack.

“The charges directed towards Libya were based on unfounded evidence in an attempt to weaken the Libyan Revolution and limit its resources and abilities.” (...)

The theory about the CIA’s alleged involvement in the Lockerbie disaster has already been advanced in a controversial documentary film and a number of books.

The Maltese Double Cross — Lockerbie a 1994 documentary produced by the late US director Allan Francovich, alleges that a bomb was introduced onto the ill-fated flight in a CIA-protected suitcase, and had nothing to do with Megrahi.

“Everybody considers him [Megrahi] to be innocent,” Col Gaddafi added.

[The above is from a report just published on The Telegraph website.

There is a similar report in The Scotsman. The report in The Sun contains the following quotes from relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster:]

But last night Susan Cohen, 72 - who lost her only daughter Theo, 20, in the 1988 Pan Am disaster - branded the threat of legal action "outrageous and insulting".

Susan, of New Jersey, US, said: "If this legal action were to go ahead - and we have no reason to think that it will not - then it would be an absolute outrage.

"Megrahi was found guilty at trial, and all this bluster from Gaddafi is designed to do one thing - to one day get a not guilty verdict for that man.

"The families of those killed who live in the US will be horrified to learn of what he has said."

Peter Lowenstein, 75, of New York, whose son Alexander, 21, was killed in the atrocity, claimed Megrahi was "a lunatic". He added: "There was a trial, the man was found guilty.

"The evidence, although circumstantial, was overwhelming.

"I see no reason and no rationale for suing the British government for unlawful imprisonment - that is absurd." (...)

Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora also perished in the bombing, welcomed the news that Megrahi's relatives could sue.

Dr Swire - who believes Megrahi to be innocent - said: "This might offer a chance to review the legal case against Megrahi.

"I think those of us who still seek the truth of what happened at Lockerbie would welcome that course of action."

And a Scottish Government spokesman said: "The Scottish Government do not doubt the conviction of al-Megrahi.

"He was given the same high standard of NHS care as any other prisoner within the Scottish prison system."

[Further reaction from the Scottish Government and others is to be found in this report on the BBC News website. What the Scottish Conservatives think about it can be read here. Is it any wonder that the party is dying on its feet in Scotland?

Any action for false imprisonment or for inadequate medical treatment while in prison would have to be brought against the Scottish, not the British, Government. While Megrahi's conviction remains in place, any action for false imprisonment would be doomed to almost inevitable failure. In an action based on neglect or inadequate medical care by the Scottish Prison Service, his family would have to prove, on a balance of probabilities, (a) that there was such neglect and (b) that the neglect caused or materially contributed to his death. I see no realistic prospect of success in this.

A better course of action for the Megrahi family would be a further application to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, in the hope that they could surmount the hurdles recently erected by section 7 of the Cadder emergency legislation.]