MacAskill book ‘likely to focus on politics behind Lockerbie’

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

Campaigners who believe Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was wrongly convicted of the Lockerbie bombing have said they doubt if a former justice secretary’s book on the atrocity will shed any further light on it.

Kenny MacAskill’s book will likely give his version of the period leading up to the release the terminally-ill Megrahi on compassionate grounds, and the subsequent international condemnation of the decision after the Libyan agent went on to live for a further three years.

It is said to include new details about MacAskill’s own investigation into the bombing, but Iain McKie, a retired police officer and leading member of the Justice for Megrahi (JfM) group, told The National he doubted that the MSP was cashing in on the case: “I would certainly hope that’s not the case. Surely anything of that nature should have been revealed long before now.

“I think it is more likely to focus on the political machinations surrounding the disaster both at home and abroad, but it is another indication that this is not going to go away.

“Reports on two police inquiries have still to be published, there is a documentary planned for later in the year and there is another book, and I think the relatives – for whom I have the deepest sympathy – deserve to know the truth.”

Robert Black QC, professor emeritus of Scots law at the University of Edinburgh, who is a native of Lockerbie and a prominent member of JfM, added: “I very much doubt that Kenny’s book will add anything substantial to the sum of human knowledge on Lockerbie.

“I know it’s said that he’s conducted his own investigations, but I find it difficult to believe he can have uncovered anything that hasn’t already been brought into to public domain by Dr Morag Kerr (Adequately Explained by Stupidity: Lockerbie, Luggage and Lies) and John Ashton (Megrahi: You Are My Jury).

“If he has discovered evidence pointing to the guilt of others (Libyan or non-Libyan) or that in his view confirms the guilt of Megrahi, then he’s duty bound to have passed this on to the police and/or the Crown Office (who say that Lockerbie remains an open investigation) who would undoubtedly adjure him not to go public with the evidence.

“I find it utterly impossible to believe that a former Cabinet Secretary for Justice would ignore such a request or instruction.

“I therefore suspect that the book will deal virtually exclusively with Kenny’s role in the run-up to Megrahi’s compassionate release.”

American Susan Cohen, who lost her 20-year-old daughter Theodora in the bombing, said she was sceptical about the book.

“Do we really think MacAskill will tell us the truth?

“It will just be an exercise in self-serving and some attempt to protect what he thinks is his legacy,” she said.

“I find it disgusting.”

Kenny MacAskill accused of ‘cashing in’ with book on Lockerbie bomber release

This is the headline over a report in today’s edition of the Sunday Post. It reads in part:]

The former Justice Secretary has been accused of cashing in after he signed a publishing deal which will see him give his account of the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

Megrahi is the only person convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing but served just eight years of his sentence before being freed in 2009 because he had cancer and doctors said he would be dead within three months.

It is understood the book will see MacAskill give his version of the period building up to releasing Megrahi and the international condemnation of the decision to free the Libyan intelligence agent, who went on to live for three more years.

MacAskill’s move last night sparked outrage from American Susan Cohen, who lost her 20-year-old daughter Theodora.

She said: “I view this book with extreme scepticism. Do we really think MacAskill will tell us the truth? It will just be an exercise in self-serving and some attempt to protect what he thinks is his legacy.

“I don’t care what he has to say, how tough the decision was or any of that.

“There has been this sort of industry grown up around Lockerbie, much like we see with many other disasters or terrorist incidents, where people make money from books or films.

“I find it disgusting frankly.”

She added: “I stand by my view that the release of Megrahi was a disgusting capitulation.

“The man murdered 270 people and lived on for years after we were told he was at death’s door, it was an embarrassment to your government.”

Scottish Conservative chief whip John Lamont added: “The SNP bent over backwards to set Megrahi free and a lot of people are still angry about that fact.

“It’s scandalous that Kenny MacAskill now feels the need to make money out of this case. Once again, it’s the victims’ families and friends who are set to suffer.” (...)

Megrahi, who always maintained his innocence, was found guilty of the bombing in 2001 and seven years later it was revealed the Libyan had “advanced stage” prostate cancer.

The then Justice Secretary MacAskill released Megrahi on compassionate grounds in 2009, sparking international condemnation with US president Barack Obama branding the decision “a mistake”.

MacAskill said he stood by his decision and would “live with the consequences”.

The veteran SNP figure and former lawyer is stepping down from Holyrood next month after 17 years as an MSP to pursue a “third career”. (...)

One SNP insider said: “Kenny couldn’t speak about the issue as frankly and freely as he would have liked at the time because he was in government.

“Any suggestion he is cashing in is wide of the mark.

“There is a lot to tell, much of which couldn’t be told at the time, so I think it is right that people get to hear the back story to such a momentous decision.”

Mr MacAskill confirmed the book deal when approached by the Sunday Post on Friday but declined to comment further.

[RB: I find it mildly amusing that UK news media seeking comments from Lockerbie victims’ families always approach US families (and usually one particular person, whose comments can be guaranteed to be colourful) rather than UK relatives whose contributions are usually more measured.

A report on the Daily Record website contains the following quote from a UK relative:]

Pam Dix, whose brother Peter died in the atrocity, yesterday said: “I am baffled as to what he can add to the extensive debate on ­Lockerbie and what his own investigation could consist of that could be of any substance.”

“Great – but let’s see what the evidence is"

[What follows is the text of an article published in today’s edition of The National:]

Lockerbie campaigner Dr Jim Swire last night called on investigators to reveal the evidence levelled at two new suspects.

Swire, whose daughter Flora was killed in the 1988 bombing, has repeatedly criticised the handling of the enquiry over the years, maintaining the innocence of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and insisting that Scottish authorities bungled the investigation.

Last night he welcomed the news that two new suspects had been identified as Scottish police and the FBI requested permission from Libyan authorities to conduct formal interviews in Tripoli.

However, he said the failure of judges to allow the families of victims of the atrocity to pursue an appeal on behalf of Megrahi had created a “difficult situation”.

The Libyan was released from Greenock Prison on compassionate grounds and died of cancer in May 2012 after serving eight-and-a-half years of a life sentence.

Reacting to the development, Swire, who leads the Justice for Megrahi campaign, said: “Great – but let’s see what the evidence is against them. Of course we want to know who killed our family members – we still believe that no one has been held to account for Lockerbie as we think the conviction against Megrahi is unsound.”

Prosecutors have always maintained Megrahi did not act alone and the two new suspects are said to have aided him in the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which claimed 270 lives.

Swire told the BBC: “I think there is a need for evidence to be made available as to why these two are suspects.

“We have recently been refused permission in Scotland to have a further appeal held into Megrahi’s conviction, and many in this country simply don’t believe Megrahi was involved and that this was a miscarriage of justice.

“To try and bolt two more names on top of that is a very difficult situation. It will need to be supported by better evidence than was produced to achieve the conviction of Megrahi.”

The opinions of the families of Lockerbie victims remains split on the issue of Megrahi’s guilt, but both sides have been critical of the authorities in their handling of the investigation.

Yesterday US citizen Susan Cohen, whose daughter Theodora was amongst those killed, said: “I’m delighted that they are doing this. We, the American families, have been pressing and pressing for the bombing to be properly investigated.

“I want to make it clear that I think Megrahi did it but the trial was framed too narrowly.

“The governments have been dragging their feet and they should have been looking for other people involved, because it wasn’t just Megrahi.”

The development follows the US broadcast of a three-part series into the Lockerbie bombing. My Brother’s Bomber followed filmmaker Ken Dornstein’s search for answers into the death of his older brother David, one of 189 Americans killed.

In the series, Dornstein honed in on 10 individuals ranging from dictator Muammar Gaddafi to Edwin Bollier, whose Swiss company, MEBO, made the timer believed to have detonated the bomb that blew up Pan Am Flight 103. Brian Murtaugh, the top US prosecutor in the case against Megrahi, told Dornstein: “The case isn’t finished, because all those responsible for the crime have not been identified and prosecuted, much less convicted.”

Retired FBI agent Richard Marquise, who helped lead the international investigation, said: “Lockerbie is still an open case. If I was writing the novel version, we would have identified not only the people who put the bomb on the plane, but those who ordered it up the chain of command.”

This week Rev John Mosey, whose teenage daughter Helga died in the bombing, spoke to families seeking justice for loved ones killed when the Malaysia Airlines flight was shot down over Ukraine that they face a battle for truth.

He said: “I’ve told them I hope in their countries the politicians can’t control the legal system, which is what happened here [in Britain]. That is what they’ll be up against.”

[An editorial in the same newspaper reads as follows:]

For many the night Pan Am 103 exploded over Lockerbie seems like an age ago. The world has moved so much in the years since then.

Scotland has changed. Libya has changed.

And yet for many that night is still fresh. The sights and sounds still painfully sharp.

And at the heart of those memories, is the fact that we still do not know exactly what happened, why it happened and who was responsible.

There are those who wish al-Megrahi had stayed in prison.

Even though it was widely accepted that he wasn’t guilty, plenty thought we should accept al-Megrahi as a close substitute.

It would have been easy to do just that.

Yet, it is the relatives of the people who died that night who have been unwilling to accept the convenience of al-Megrahi.

Not al-Megrahi’s relatives, lost in the quagmire of Libya in 2015. Scared of what might happen.

But the families of those who were on the plane and who were in Lockerbie are unwilling to accept the compromise. Those families feel let down by the legal system, the government and are, understandably, unwilling to trust what they are told by their political leaders.

Yesterday they have been given another shot of hope as Scottish prosecutors seek to interview two new individuals suspected of being involved, along with al-Megrahi, in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

For the families it seemed as if we have moved one step closer to finding out the truth.

Though with Libya in chaos, this may not be as easy as it seems.

The repercussions of that night are still being felt across the world.

They define Scotland’s relationship with the US. They impact on Daesh.

For the sake of those of died and those who survived them, and the sake of moving on, the truth must come out.

[A report in The Herald can be read here; and a report in The Scotsman here.]

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

Test of post-Lockerbie airline security

[What follows is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Dr Jim Swire:]

On 18 May 1990, Swire took a fake bomb on-board a British Airways flight from London's Heathrow airport to New York's JFK* and then on a flight from New York JFK to Boston to show that airline security had not improved; his fake bomb consisted of a radio cassette player and the confectionery marzipan, which was used as a substitute for Semtex. Some American family members asked Swire to keep the news of the stunt quiet; it became public six weeks later. Susan and Daniel Cohen, parents of Pan Am Flight 103 victim Theodora Cohen approved of the plan, while some other family members of American victims did not.**

* Fineman, Mark (6 July 1990). "TERRORISM / ONE MAN'S CRUSADE : Fake Bomb Shows Hole in Security : The father of one of the victims of the Pan Am 103 tragedy demonstrates that it could happen again". Los Angeles Times.

**Cohen, Susan and Daniel. "Chapter 16." Pan Am 103: The Bombing, the Betrayals, and a Bereaved Family's Search for Justice. New American Library. 2000. 225.

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.]

Wind farms like Lockerbie disaster - Donald Trump

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

Donald Trump sparked renewed outrage yesterday when he compared the development of wind farms in Scotland to the Lockerbie disaster.

On Tuesday, the billionaire tycoon announced that the Trump Organisation would be turning its back on Scotland and concentrating on developing a new course on the Republic of Ireland’s Atlantic coast.

The announcement came after Trump lost his legal challenge against the Scottish Government’s decision to give the go-ahead to an offshore wind farm in Aberdeen Bay which he claims will blight the view from his luxury golf resort at Menie, on the Aberdeenshire coast.

But yesterday, Trump sparked an angry backlash after renewing his attack on green energy schemes in Scotland in an interview with The Irish Times.

He told the newspaper: “Wind farms are a disaster for Scotland, like Pan Am 103. They make people sick with the continuous noise. They’re an abomination and are only sustained with government subsidy. Scotland is in the middle of a revolution against wind farms. People don’t want them near their homes, ruining property values.” (...)

Trump’s outburst was condemned by MSPs and relatives of the victims.

Susan Cohen, a New Jersey pensioner whose daughter Theodora, an aspiring actress, was 20 when she was killed in the disaster, said: “Obviously, there is no call for that. Donald Trump says many, many things here in the United States and I am, of course, appreciative of anyone who takes a tough stand on Lockerbie which he did at times.

“But, at the same time, I think that is an unfortunate choice of words. I wish he had not made that comparison. Lockerbie was a ghastly tragedy that destroyed many lives and is beyond comparison. It is one of the great and terrible events of man’s inhumanity to man and therefore it’s of an order where it should not be likened to anything.”

Joan McAlpine, the SNP MSP for the South of Scotland, claimed: “Even by Donald Trump’s standards, these comments are unbelievably crass and show a complete lack of respect to the families affected by the Lockerbie bombing – in the US, Scotland and across the world. He should withdraw them as a matter of urgency and apologise for any offence he has caused.”

Alison Johnstone, a Green Party MSP for the Lothians and member of Holyrood’s economy, energy and tourism committee, also hit out at the tycoon’s remarks. She said: “It’s grossly offensive to link renewables with the Lockerbie bombing. Mr Trump has already been reprimanded by advertising authorities for making such distasteful statements and he should apologise for his continued crass behaviour.” Ms Johnstone added: “He didn’t have a shred of evidence that renewables are bad for tourism when he was quizzed in parliament. Twelve-thousand people are now employed in renewables in Scotland, proving that Mr Trump knows nothing about the Scottish economy.”

In December 2012, Trump was accused of “sinking to a new low” and being “sick” for publishing an advert in Scottish newspapers which linked the government’s support of wind farms with the decision to release Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The Scottish Green Party lodged a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority over the controversial advert, published in two regional newspapers and urging the public to protest against First Minister Alex Salmond’s support for renewable energy.

Under the banner “Is this the future for Scotland?” the advert featured a picture of a huge wind farm in California and a photograph of the First Minister.

It stated: “Tourism will suffer and the beauty of your country is in jeopardy! This is the same mind that backed the release of terrorist al-Megrahi ‘for humane reasons’ – after he ruthlessly killed 270 people on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie.”

The advert was condemned as “misleading” by the Advertising Standards Authority. (...)

[David Milne, a long-standing opponent of the Trump resort:]

Words have been used by Mr Trump on many occasions to accuse others of impropriety and inappropriate behaviour, with little in the way of evidence to support his claims. Having read the Court of Session decision by Lord Doherty, he obviously came to a similar conclusion about the evidence supplied by Mr Trump in that situation.

Unfortunately, grandiose words seem to have failed Mr Trump this time and his use of the Lockerbie bombing in comparison to wind turbines is not acceptable.

To diminish the suffering of the families of that event by trying to compare an international terrorist event that killed people of several nationalities with an attempt to protect and extend the environment of our planet is insensitive and ill considered. I am certain even some of his own supporters back in the USA will be shocked.

[Further blogposts relating to Donald Trump’s Lockerbie and Megrahi outbursts can be read here.]