The prosecution’s case was farcical

[What follows is a post by John Ashmore on The Staggers, the New Statesman's rolling blog, from this date in 2010:]

The Lockerbie bomber? A likely story . . .

In all the furore over Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, we have lost sight of one important fact.

So, the British ambassador to the US says that the government "deeply regrets" the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Meanwhile, US senators are calling for an inquiry into allegations that BP lobbied the British government to let Megrahi go in order to protect their interests in Libya.

News of his release on compassionate grounds a year ago prompted a similar wave of indignation. The papers bleated about Megrahi showing no compassion to his victims, that this was not "justice", and that the government was ignoring the victims of the bombing. (...)

What is rarely mentioned amid all the outrage is that there is considerable doubt over Megrahi's guilt.

As the late Paul Foot pointed out, having sat through the whole of Megrahi's trial at [Zeist] in 2001, the prosecution's case was farcical.

That Megrahi felt the need to write 300 pages about his innocence is odd -- one ought to have sufficed.

To summarise, Megrahi is meant to have planted a bomb on a plane in Malta, which then travelled on to Frankfurt, and then on again to Heathrow, before finally exploding on Pan Am Flight 103 in the sky above Lockerbie. We are supposed to believe, then, that the bomb got on to three planes in a row without being detected. It seems a lot more likely that the bomb was planted at London than anywhere else.

In their judgment, the three judges at the [Zeist] trial also pointed out that there was nothing that proved Megrahi had put a bomb on the plane in Malta. They noted: "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta] is a major difficulty for the Crown case."

What's more, Megrahi was apparently aided by a conspirator, yet his co-accused at the Hague trial was unanimously acquitted.

The prosecution's star witness was Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who claimed to remember Megrahi buying clothes from his shop. These clothes apparently found their way into the case in which the bomb was concealed.

Gauci also said, however, that he remembered it raining on the day Megrahi came in, yet meteorological records show this was not the case. This does not discount Gauci's testimony, but it must give pause for thought.

His claim to be able to remember and identify a single customer many months after he apparently entered his shop is much more difficult to sustain. Again, the court expressed its reservations, saying that "Mr Gauci's initial description to DCI Bell would not in a number of respects fit the first accused" (Megrahi).

Perhaps those calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of this man's release should dig a little deeper into how he was convicted in the first place.

BP lobbied UK Government to speed up prisoner transfer agreement

[What follows is excerpted from a report published in The Evening Standard on this date in 2010:]

BP admitted today that it put pressure on the British Government to speed up talks on a deal that led directly to the early release of the Lockerbie bomber.

In a statement the oil giant said that in "late 2007" it told ministers that "we were concerned about the slow progress that was being made in concluding a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with Libya".

The agreement was a key piece of the complex diplomatic jigsaw that ended in the dramatic return of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Tripoli on compassionate grounds last August. The lobbying came after BP signed a $900 million exploration agreement with Libya in May 2007.

BP said it was aware that any delay in signing the agreement "could have a negative impact on UK commercial interests, including the ratification by the Libyan government of BP's exploration agreement".

However, the company insisted that it did not get involved in the detail of al-Megrahi's release.

It said: "The decision to release Mr al- Megrahi in August 2009 was taken by the Scottish government. It's not for BP to comment on the decision of the Scottish government. BP was not involved in any discussions with the UK Government or the Scottish government about the release of Mr al-Megrahi."

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she would look at requests from US Senators to investigate the role BP played in the release.

Yesterday, Mrs Clinton confirmed she had received the letter from Democratic Senators Robert Menendez, Frank Lautenberg, Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer "and we will obviously look into it".

Trial told of security weakness

[This is the headline over a report that appeared on the BBC News website on this date in 2000. It reads in part:]

The Lockerbie trial has heard an airport supervisor admit it would have been possible for an unchecked bag to have been put on a flight from Malta which connected with Pan Am 103.

But Wilfred Borg, ground operations general manager at Malta's Luqa Airport, denied unidentified luggage records produced by the prosecution showed safety procedures were broken.

Prosecutors are trying to prove the two Libyans accused of bombing a New York-bound airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, planted the suitcase with the bomb on an Air Malta flight which later connected with the Pan Am flight.

Mr Borg was questioned for hours by prosecutor Alan Turnbull about safety operations at the airport. (...)

In particular, he pointed to a 21 December 1988 Air Malta flight to Cairo in which five bags left on the tarmac in a previous flight were cleared without any apparent record of their identification by passengers.

"Is the obvious inference not that baggage was on board without passengers?" he asked.

Mr Borg replied: "No."

"There must have at least have been a possibility," Mr Turnbull insisted.

"I cannot discount the possibility," the witness answered.

Mr Turnbull said 55 bags were checked and recorded as loaded onto KM 180 to Frankfurt, but noted that although the flight coupons belonging to a group of three passengers showed 16 bags, the check-in list only registered 14 bags.

Mr Borg rejected the prosecutor's suggestion that a decline in the average number of inconsistencies after February 1989 suggested security lapses were cleaned up after German police came to Malta to question airport employees in connection with the Lockerbie bombing.

At the end of the day, Turnbull asked Mr Borg to verify a photo badge that gave defendant Lamen Khalifa Fhimah, the Libyan airline's station manager, security clearance throughout the airport.

This was after the prosecutor had asked whether a person familiar with security operations and access to loading areas could "deliberately have circumvented the checks you had in place?"

Mr Borg replied: "Anything is possible. Whether it was probable is a different story."

[RB: What follows is excerpted from TheLockerbieTrial.com’s contemporaneous commentary on this evidence:]

Certain assumptions have been made regarding Malta's Luqa airport. It has been assumed by many that because Malta is a small country then it follows that their airport security would be lax.

The Crown will undoubtedly contend that all was not well with security at Luqa airport and this will assist their assertions that the suitcase containing the bomb was inserted at this point.

However our investigations have uncovered startling new facts which may counter this part of the Crown theory.

The arguments that may be used to counter this claim have come from a source which will surprise many. It comes directly from the US Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA.

In 1987, a year before the bombing of Pan Am 103, Pan Am made it known that they wished to operate a cargo service to and from Malta. In any instances, where an American flag carrier, such as Pan Am, makes it known that they wish to fly into an airport for the first time, the FAA is mandated to carry out inspections and assessments of the airport concerned.

Officials of the FAA carried out such an assessment of Luqa airport and their report will do nothing to further the Crown's case regarding lax security.

Sources from within the FAA, who spoke on condition of anonymity, have informed us that if they [the FAA] scored airports on a point system giving points out of ten, then their assessment of Luqa Airport would be 9 out of 10.

With the exception of some administrative recommendations, the FAA gave Luqa airport, Malta, a clean bill of health.

Hardly the picture of a small third world countries airport with poor security. Anyone familiar with Luqa airport during that period would know that armed soldiers from the Maltese armed forces carried out much of the security at the airport.

These revelations may have come to light earlier (we learned of this 3 months ago) had the FAA been more careful about their archived documentation.

Those same sources within the FAA confirmed to us that during 1993/1994, the FAA destroyed many assessments and inspections of European airports, covering the 1980s, including the report compiled on Luqa airport. Our source has stated that this destruction was done in error and not in any way to thwart the Lockerbie investigation. The Government of Malta was given a copy of the FAA report.

We make no assertions that the FAA, by destroying these reports, acted in any way maliciously and our sources within the FAA have spoken of the quality and level of co-operation extended to those involved in the legal preparations for this trial.

While the issues under examination today are specific to Air Malta and not to Luqa airport, there is undoubtedly a connection with regards to overall security procedures.

Denying public inquiry indefensible

What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009.

Justice, compassion, integrity

[What follows is the text of an article by Christine Grahame MSP in the Scottish edition of yesterday's Sunday Express. As far as I can discover, the article does not appear on the newspaper's website.]

He is the face of an atrocity which remains the worst act of terrorism ever perpetrated on UK soil, but soon, within a few months, the man convicted of the Lockerbie Pan Am 103 bombing will be dead. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has advanced stage terminal prostate cancer. On the two occasions when I visited him at Greenock Prison his constant discomfort was clearly evident. For almost 10 years since his conviction he has fought relentlessly to clear his name, but his degenerative terminal illness has changed his focus. Now he is a man desperate to see his family before he dies.

When the UK Government learned of Megrahi’s imminent second appeal following a lengthy four year investigation by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission which concluded there may have been a miscarriage of justice, Tony Blair hastily put in place a Prisoner Transfer Agreement with the Libyan Government. It was two years before that appeal began.

Many in the UK Government and elsewhere who do not want this second appeal by Mr Megrahi to go ahead. Why?

The reputation of the Scottish legal system would be on the line if Mr Megrahi were successful, yet with every week that goes by another significant piece of new evidence undermines the Crown’s case. There are professional reputations in the Scottish legal establishment and in the US that are being challenged here.

Robert Black, the highly respected Professor Emeritus of Scots Law at the University of Edinburgh who knows this case inside out has concluded: “I am satisfied that not only was there a wrongful conviction, but the victim of it was an innocent man. Lawyers, and I hope others, will appreciate this distinction.” That in itself is a serious indictment of the Scottish legal system.

Megrahi’s appeal has been plagued by delay and takes no account whatsoever of his terminal condition. Last Tuesday the Court of Appeal announced a further delay due to the ill health of one of the Appeal Judges, Lord Wheatley. This additional delay puts the process back a further four months at least. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Megrahi’s defence lawyer said when the Court announcement was made. The latest hold-up ensures, beyond reasonable doubt that Megrahi will not live to see the end of the appeal process, regardless of what legal choices he makes in the next few weeks.

He has a very stark decision to make either continue with the appeal and at the point of his death a family member can take it forward to its conclusion on his behalf. This option means Megrahi will die in prison in an environment that senior prison officials have already told me are not suitable for a terminally ill man. Or alternatively he can abandon his appeal and hope that he is granted a Prisoner Transfer back to Libya, but this is by no means guaranteed.

There is however a third way; compassionate release to Libya which would allow him to die near to his close knit family, including his elderly parents and allow the appeal to proceed to a determination.

This can be granted unilaterally by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and would reflect the principles of Scots law based on justice and compassion. This option is supported by legal experts and relatives of victims such as the redoubtable Dr Jim Swire who has campaigned tirelessly to expose the truth behind the bombing which claimed the life of his daughter Flora. Many are opposed to such a compromise of course, including a significant number, but not all, of the US relatives of Pan Am 103 as are senior officials in the Scottish Justice Department, some of whom built their careers on the Lockerbie case.

A Prisoner Transfer may be seen as conveniently ending the matter. That would be naïve. Such is the weight of fresh evidence indicating Megrahi’s innocence combined with significant doubt over the original material used to convict in the first place, that calls for a public inquiry are likely to increase and denying one, indefensible. It is vital that the truth is exposed, for all involved, and most particularly victims families. Compassionate release offers the only compromise which would exhaust due legal process, demonstrate compassion and prove the integrity of the Scottish judicial system. Justice, compassion, integrity, three words engraved on the Scottish Parliament’s Mace. Let’s hope and trust this nation lives up to them.

[RB: As we now (2017) know, the compassionate release of Abdelbaset Megrahi did not allow his appeal to continue and due process to be observed. Why not?  Because the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, wholly gratuitously and unnecessarily, insisted on dealing with Megrahi’s compassionate release application along with the Libyan Government’s prisoner transfer application, and the latter required abandonment of the ongoing appeal. Cunning, eh?]

Justice Secretary to meet Megrahi over repatriation

[What follows is the text of a report published on The Scotsman website on this date in 2009:]

Justice secretary Kenny MacAskill is to meet the Lockerbie bomber to discuss his possible transfer home to Libya to serve out the rest of his prison sentence.

The Scottish Government confirmed yesterday that it had received a request from Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to meet Mr MacAskill to put his case. A meeting is likely to take place "soon", probably in Greenock prison, where Megrahi, who has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, is being held.

Megrahi was convicted in 2001 for the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, in which 270 people died.

A spokesman for Mr MacAskill said: "The justice secretary feels it is right to hear from all the people who would be affected by the decision to ensure he has the best possible information on which to base any decision."

The transfer application, which was submitted in May, normally takes around 90 days to complete. A decision from Mr MacAskill, who has vowed to ignore political and economic considerations, is expected by mid-August.

It is separate to a second appeal against his conviction from Megrahi being considered by the Scottish courts. A decision on this has been delayed until the autumn due to the illness of one of the judges.

In determining whether to allow the transfer, Mr MacAskill has also sought the views of the British and American families of victims of the attack, as well as that of US attorney-general Eric Holder.

Mr MacAskill said last month: "The Lockerbie air disaster remains the most serious terrorist atrocity committed in the United Kingdom. I am aware of the pain and grief still being experienced by many people whose lives were affected by it both here in Scotland and across the world."

Megrahi's case was raised by Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, when he met Gordon Brown at last week's G8 summit in Italy, but the Prime Minister told him it was a matter for the Scottish Government.

[RB: Commentary on the MacAskill visit to Megrahi can be found here.]

US Lockerbie families speak out against new bomber appeal

[This is the headline over a report published today in the Scottish edition of The Times. It reads in part:]

The families of the American Lockerbie victims have condemned a decision to launch a new appeal to clear the bomber’s name.

Mary Kay Stratis, whose husband, Elia, died in the attack, has spoken out on behalf of the US families, describing the appeal as “redundant, ineffective and futile”.

Relatives of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who was convicted in 2001 of planting the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over southern Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people, launched a new legal bid to clear his name last week. (...)

The papers filed by al-Megrahi’s family will go to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, which will then decide whether there are grounds to refer the case to the Court of Appeal.

The move has angered the families of the Americans who died in the atrocity. In a statement to The Times on behalf of a group of victims’ relatives Mrs Stratis said: “We believe that justice was done in the Scottish judgment and the appeal and we believe that the Scottish judicial system is praiseworthy despite the calumny visited upon it by al-Megrahi’s supporters.

“The case and the appeal have already been given rigorous scrutiny by the presiding judges and we do not believe the Scottish review commission can alter what has already been proven.”

Mrs Stratis said that the families of the American victims had “great admiration for the people of Scotland especially the citizens of Lockerbie”, who she said had “opened their hearts” to them.

She added that the only objection the American relatives had was to the release of al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds.

“We believe it is past time to revisit yet another futile attempt at an appeal and that now resources, time, and efforts should be spent on interrogating those remaining from the Gaddafi regime,” she said.

Mrs Stratis said that the American relatives were “realistic in believing that al-Megrahi could not have acted alone” but they also believed “that he carried out the orders he was given to cause this act of terrorism to happen”.

She said: “Pursuing truth and justice is still our goal. We believe there is more truth to uncover but putting efforts and resources towards another appeal for Megrahi is redundant, ineffective and futile.”

Jim Swire, an English doctor who lost his daughter Flora in the attack, said he believed that there was a case for looking again at the evidence.

“If the case is to be re-examined the starting point should be to make sure the examination is based on all the evidence in the Megrahi case,” he said.

“In those circumstances, it seems to me that the most logical next step is to re-examine the evidence and see whether it stands up in the Court of Appeal.”

Aamer Anwar, a lawyer for al-Megrahi’s family, said: “This is a legal process that must be pursued, as the only forum where the significant doubts over the conviction of the late al-Megrahi can be settled once and for all is of course the Scottish Court of Appeal.

“Whilst the pain and anguish of the American relatives is understandable they should also be aware that this appeal would have the support of many British relatives who lost their loved ones too that awful night in December 1988.

“We have their support because they believe there can be no justice without the truth.”

Tony Gauci’s evidence

[On this date in 2000 the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci gave his evidence at the Lockerbie trial. Glasgow University’s Lockerbie Trial Briefing Unit recorded his appearance in the witness box in a brief report that reads as follows:]

The main evidence on Tuesday was that of Mr Tony Gauci. Mr Gauci is the proprietor of the shop 'Mary's House' in Sliema, Malta from where the clothing in the suitcase allegedly containing the explosive device is said to have been purchased. He stated that the man who purchased the clothing resembled one of the accused - Mr Al Megrahi. However, he also admitted that in 1991 he had identified Mohamed Abu Talb as closely resembling the man who had made the purchases. The latter is, of course, one of the individuals incriminated by the defence.'

[RB: A full transcript of Mr Gauci’s evidence can be read here (pages 1467 to 1500). A devastating analysis by Kevin Bannon of the Gauci evidence can be read here.]

The dark cloud over justice in Scotland

Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer has today posted on his Intel Today website a long series of quotes about the Lockerbie case. These demonstrate just how widespread and pervasive is scepticism about the justice of the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.

One of the factors that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has to consider in relation to the recent application by the Megrahi family is whether it is in the interests of justice that there should be a further appeal. The quotes published by Dr De Braeckeleer starkly illustrate precisely how unimpressed knowledgeable observers are about the performance of the Scottish criminal justice system in the Lockerbie case (and those knowledgeable observers extend far beyond the “usual suspects” like Dr Jim Swire and me). It is manifestly in the interests of justice -- and in the interests of the Scottish justice system -- that our courts should be accorded the opportunity to rescue their tarnished reputation. It is difficult to see how else the dark cloud over the administration of justice in Scotland can ever be lifted.

Brown insisted he could not intervene in Megrahi case

What follows is excerpted from an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009:

Gaddafi demands return of Lockerbie bomber in first meeting with Brown

In his first face to face meeting with Gordon Brown, Muammar Gaddafi today demanded the return of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi.

The Libyan leader was told by the prime minister that it was a matter for the Scottish courts. [RB: Tony Blair was, of course, mistaken: it was a matter for a Scottish Government minister.]

Gaddafi, wearing a flowing black and white silken robe and protected by female bodyguards, is at the G8 summit in Italy as the rotating president of the African Union. (...)

In a 40-minute meeting between the two leaders, conducted in Arabic and English, Brown insisted he could not intervene in the Megrahi case.

Scottish judges this week delayed completing an appeal into Megrahi's conviction until at least September, even though he has prostate cancer and faces a risk of dying in prison.

The bombing of flight Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988 killed 270 people on the aircraft and the ground.

Gaddafi's demand for the return of Megrahi was countered by Brown urging him to do more to cooperate with the Metropolitan police investigation into the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher in 1984.

Her murder led to the severing of diplomatic ties between the two countries for a decade, but Gaddafi subsequently worked to improve relations with the west, so much so that Tony Blair went to Tripoli to meet him in 2004.

The Libyans have admitted responsibility for Fletcher's killing by embassy staff and have paid compensation, but Britain is complaining that Libya is not producing witnesses, meaning the inquiry has stalled for more than a year.

[From a report by Patrick Wintour on the website of The Guardian. There is a (...) shorter report on the BBC News website.]

UN intends to lift Libya sanctions

[On this date in 1999 the United Nations Security Council affirmed its intention to lift the various sanctions imposed over the years on Libya for its failure to hand over the Lockerbie suspects for trial. A statement was issued in the following terms:]

The Security Council recalls its resolutions 731 (1992) of 21 January 1992, 748 (1992) of 31 March 1992, 883 (1993) of 11 November 1993 and 1192 (1998) of 27 August 1998 and the statement of its President of 8 April 1999 (S/PRST/1999/10).

The Security Council welcomes the report of the Secretary-General of 30 June 1999 (S/1999/726) in fulfilment of the request contained in paragraph 16 of resolution 883 (1993).

The Security Council welcomes the positive developments identified in the report and the fact that the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya has made significant progress in compliance with the relevant resolutions. It welcomes also the commitment given by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya to implement further the relevant resolutions by continuing cooperation in order to meet all the requirements contained therein. It encourages all parties concerned to maintain their spirit of cooperation. The Council recalls that the measures set forth in resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) have been suspended, and reaffirms its intention to lift those measures as soon as possible, in conformity with the relevant resolutions.

The Security Council expresses its gratitude to the Secretary-General for his continued efforts in his role as set out in paragraph 4 of resolution 731 (1992) and paragraph 6 of resolution 1192 (1998), and requests him to follow developments regarding this matter closely and to report to the Council accordingly.

The Security Council remains actively seized of the matter.

Restoration of diplomatic relations with Libya

[The following are three snippets from this date in 1999 that appear on the Libya: News and Views website:]

The UK has announced it is restoring full diplomatic links with Libya after a break of 15 years. The move follows the Libyan Government's acceptance of "general responsibility" for the killing of policewoman Yvonne Fletcher, who was shot dead outside its London embassy in 1984. It has also agreed to pay substantial compensation to the Fletcher family and to co-operate in the investigation to find the killer. The compensation is understood to reach six figures, although the actual amount is not being revealed. [BBC]

Libya's UN ambassador on Wednesday attributed Libya's thaw in relations with Britain to Tripoli's surrender of two suspects in the Lockerbie bombing case and said it was time UN sanctions were lifted. Ambassador Abuzed Omar Dorda said a resumption of ties with Britain, announced by British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, “is the natural thing.” Dorda was reacting to Cook's announcement on Wednesday that London was resuming diplomatic relations with Libya after Tripoli agreed to cooperate in police investigations into the 1984 shooting of a British policewoman outside Libya's embassy in London. Cook told parliament Libya had also agreed to pay compensation for the killing. [Reuters]

The United States will not follow Britain's example and resume ties with Libya, at least until Tripoli offers compensation for the Americans killed over Lockerbie in 1988, the State Department said on Wednesday. Britain is reopening diplomatic relations after 15 years because Tripoli has agreed to cooperate in police investigations into the fatal shooting in 1984 of a British policewoman outside Libya's embassy in London. In Washington, US State Department spokesman James Foley noted the Libyan concessions and said the United States would seek the same for the families of victims of Pan Am flight 103, which blew up over Lockerbie in Scotland. [Reuters]