The first stage of Abdelbaset Megrahi's appeal did in fact end yesterday. Here is what the Lord Justice General (Lord Hamilton) said at the conclusion of the proceedings:
'The court is much obliged to counsel on either hand for the careful and comprehensive submissions which have been made at this stage of the appeal. We will now, of course, require to give these submissions detailed and careful consideration. A question will arise as to whether it is appropriate to decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage or, alternatively, to defer that decision until we have heard argument on other grounds, which are or may be closely related to them.
'We appreciate that having regard to, among other things, the appellant's state of health there will be concern that we deal with these matters as expeditiously as possible. But having regard to their importance to all concerned, we cannot and must not rush to judgment.
'Time has been set aside towards the end of this term for a procedural hearing in relation to further grounds of appeal. And in terms of the interlocutor of 18 March of this year, days were set aside in the week commencing 29 June for that purpose. For reasons which it is not necessary to go into, we intend to change that date or dates to dates in the week following that, that is the week commencing 6 July. We expect that by that time we will have reached a decision as to whether or not we should decide grounds 1 and 2 at this stage and to be able to intimate which course of action, either deciding them at this stage or deferring them, we have decided upon.
'But by this time, we shall simply continue the appeal to the first of the dates which are now substituted for the procedural matters which we have referred to, that is to Tuesday 7 July of this year.'
Media accounts have been provided by BBC News and by The Scotsman.
Wednesday 20 May 2009
Tuesday 19 May 2009
Is the first stage of the appeal over?
The Crown was due to end its submissions at today’s session of Abdelbaset Megrahi’s current appeal. Whether it did, in fact, do so and whether the first stage of the appeal accordingly came to an end, I cannot say since no media organisation has seen fit as yet to enlighten us. Perhaps tomorrow’s newspapers will let us know. But, given the paucity of the coverage to date, I would not recommend holding your breath.
After the conclusion of the first stage, the court is due to recess for a month before starting the second stage which is expected to be largely devoted to challenging the evidence of Tony Gauci and the conclusions that the trial court reached on that evidence.
After the conclusion of the first stage, the court is due to recess for a month before starting the second stage which is expected to be largely devoted to challenging the evidence of Tony Gauci and the conclusions that the trial court reached on that evidence.
Sunday 17 May 2009
Malta could have done more to reject Lockerbie claims - UN monitor
[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of The Sunday Times, Malta. It reads as follows:]
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty as charged and there is no convincing argument for Malta's involvement in the terrorist act, according to the United Nations' appointed monitor of the trial in the Netherlands.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, told The Sunday Times: "I never really understood why the government of Malta did so little to reject these allegations and to defend the integrity of the country's civil aviation system."
Twenty years after the bombing, the government has gone no further than saying that it is monitoring proceedings of the second appeal. Air Malta did not comment.
Malta was implicated in the terrorist act because the prosecution had argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport on board the doomed Pan Am flight 103A.
The flight went to London Heathrow and was bound for New York's JFK airport before exploding over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands had led the Scottish judges to conclude in 2001 that Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty. He was jailed for life while the other defendant was released.
In his report after the verdict, Dr Koechler had concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Several years on, he stands by his conclusions: "The court did not come up with any convincing argument that Mr Al-Megrahi is the one who bought the clothes at the shop in Malta and that the 'bomb suitcase' was loaded at Luqa Airport."
Dr Koechler expressed doubt that Mr Al-Megrahi's ongoing appeal, which started on April 28, could be fair and impartial because of the "outright interference of the British government trying to withhold certain sensitive evidence from the defence".
He said political expediency had guided the original verdict, saying it reflected the political considerations related to the foreign policy interests of the involved states at that time.
One of Malta's leading lawyers, who had formed part of the legal team in the defence of the two Libyan suspects, also believes Mr Al-Megrahi is innocent.
Emmanuel Mallia told The Sunday Times: "I personally know the accused and have always firmly believed in his innocence."
Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation came to the conclusion that a "miscarriage of justice" may have occurred.
Dr Mallia would not enter into the merits of the case because it is still sub judice. But he said his personal view was that the verdict was flawed.
"Having examined the judgment of the court at Camp Zeist and being aware of the salient evidence produced in the case by the prosecution, I feel that the evidence could never have amounted to guilt of the accusation according to law," Dr Mallia said.
He said the prosecution lacked reliable evidence that could prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: "Although there were a lot of issues which could give rise to suspicion, anything argued on the basis of suspicion may lead to conjecture but not proof. Even if considering circumstantial evidence, we know that such evidence can mislead and, in order to rely upon it, it has to lead to one direction."
Some argue that at the early investigation stage Malta was perhaps too compliant.
"The government gave access to the Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary. Some have argued that things may have been done differently with the Malta police having more direct control of the investigation".
A former Scottish judge regarded as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, also told The Sunday Times last week that there was never any evidence that the bomb left from Malta.
On his blog this week, Prof. Black contested arguments made by the prosecution at the Court of Criminal Appeal in recent days that Mr Al-Megrahi's trip to Malta with a false passport the day the bomb was planted, and his departure the day after, was a link to the commission of the offence.
"As regards the coded - not false - passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal," Prof. Black said.
The hearing continues despite rumours that the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer may choose to drop his appeal and go home because of a recent prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from prostate cancer and can choose to die at home. But dropping his appeal will leave him a condemned man and mean that Malta will remain implicated in one of the worst terrorist acts in aviation history.
According to Dr Koechler, it is "absolutely essential" that the appeal goes ahead: "The Scottish authorities can reconcile the imperatives of the rule of law and of humanity and grant the appellant compassionate release while the appeal goes on... In a situation where there are serious doubts whether he is guilty as charged, and where the public is confronted with an increasing number of shocking revelations about the mishandling of the case by the judiciary, tampering with evidence, and so on, it is appropriate to make such a step."
Dr Koechler believes the British Parliament should mandate an independent public investigation into the Lockerbie case.
"The international public, including the people of Malta, deserve to know the truth - the full and uncensored truth - about the chain of events that led to the explosion of the American jetliner over Lockerbie."
The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty as charged and there is no convincing argument for Malta's involvement in the terrorist act, according to the United Nations' appointed monitor of the trial in the Netherlands.
Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, told The Sunday Times: "I never really understood why the government of Malta did so little to reject these allegations and to defend the integrity of the country's civil aviation system."
Twenty years after the bombing, the government has gone no further than saying that it is monitoring proceedings of the second appeal. Air Malta did not comment.
Malta was implicated in the terrorist act because the prosecution had argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport on board the doomed Pan Am flight 103A.
The flight went to London Heathrow and was bound for New York's JFK airport before exploding over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands had led the Scottish judges to conclude in 2001 that Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty. He was jailed for life while the other defendant was released.
In his report after the verdict, Dr Koechler had concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Several years on, he stands by his conclusions: "The court did not come up with any convincing argument that Mr Al-Megrahi is the one who bought the clothes at the shop in Malta and that the 'bomb suitcase' was loaded at Luqa Airport."
Dr Koechler expressed doubt that Mr Al-Megrahi's ongoing appeal, which started on April 28, could be fair and impartial because of the "outright interference of the British government trying to withhold certain sensitive evidence from the defence".
He said political expediency had guided the original verdict, saying it reflected the political considerations related to the foreign policy interests of the involved states at that time.
One of Malta's leading lawyers, who had formed part of the legal team in the defence of the two Libyan suspects, also believes Mr Al-Megrahi is innocent.
Emmanuel Mallia told The Sunday Times: "I personally know the accused and have always firmly believed in his innocence."
Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation came to the conclusion that a "miscarriage of justice" may have occurred.
Dr Mallia would not enter into the merits of the case because it is still sub judice. But he said his personal view was that the verdict was flawed.
"Having examined the judgment of the court at Camp Zeist and being aware of the salient evidence produced in the case by the prosecution, I feel that the evidence could never have amounted to guilt of the accusation according to law," Dr Mallia said.
He said the prosecution lacked reliable evidence that could prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: "Although there were a lot of issues which could give rise to suspicion, anything argued on the basis of suspicion may lead to conjecture but not proof. Even if considering circumstantial evidence, we know that such evidence can mislead and, in order to rely upon it, it has to lead to one direction."
Some argue that at the early investigation stage Malta was perhaps too compliant.
"The government gave access to the Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary. Some have argued that things may have been done differently with the Malta police having more direct control of the investigation".
A former Scottish judge regarded as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, also told The Sunday Times last week that there was never any evidence that the bomb left from Malta.
On his blog this week, Prof. Black contested arguments made by the prosecution at the Court of Criminal Appeal in recent days that Mr Al-Megrahi's trip to Malta with a false passport the day the bomb was planted, and his departure the day after, was a link to the commission of the offence.
"As regards the coded - not false - passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal," Prof. Black said.
The hearing continues despite rumours that the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer may choose to drop his appeal and go home because of a recent prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.
Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from prostate cancer and can choose to die at home. But dropping his appeal will leave him a condemned man and mean that Malta will remain implicated in one of the worst terrorist acts in aviation history.
According to Dr Koechler, it is "absolutely essential" that the appeal goes ahead: "The Scottish authorities can reconcile the imperatives of the rule of law and of humanity and grant the appellant compassionate release while the appeal goes on... In a situation where there are serious doubts whether he is guilty as charged, and where the public is confronted with an increasing number of shocking revelations about the mishandling of the case by the judiciary, tampering with evidence, and so on, it is appropriate to make such a step."
Dr Koechler believes the British Parliament should mandate an independent public investigation into the Lockerbie case.
"The international public, including the people of Malta, deserve to know the truth - the full and uncensored truth - about the chain of events that led to the explosion of the American jetliner over Lockerbie."
Lockerbie evidence needs public hearing
This is the heading over a letter by Roger Salvesen in today's edition of Scotland on Sunday. It reads as follows:
'Your editorial contains the words "Any decision to free the prisoner…" (Leader, 10 May). As I understand it the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya under the recently signed agreement between Libya and the UK allows a prisoner of Libyan nationality, convicted and imprisoned in the UK, to be transferred to Libya after a certain time spent in a UK jail to serve out the rest of his sentence in a Libyan prison, and that is not the same as freeing the prisoner.
'Perhaps imprisonment for Megrahi in Libya would be different from, perhaps better than, the conditions he experiences in Greenock, but there have been precedents in the past where Britons found guilty and imprisoned abroad have been transferred to the UK to serve the remainder of their sentences in UK prisons.
'Your editorial talks about a question mark hanging over Scottish justice. I would agree that this must be avoided at all costs, but there seem to be many obstacles which might be in the way of achieving this. The jurisdiction of the Scottish Appeal Court requires Megrahi to be physically present in Scotland during the duration of the appeal, which might take a year to come to a conclusion.
'It seems to me to be absolutely vital that the new information which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board has provided for the current appeal must somehow be brought into the public domain. At the moment it seems that Megrahi must abandon his appeal if he is to obtain his wish to be transferred to Libya and so the information would not be revealed. What would happen if he decides to stay in Scotland but dies before the court can deliver a judgment? Would any new evidence which hadn't been presented by then be lost? We know now that new evidence is available and it seems to me that, to preserve the reputation of Scottish justice, means must be found to present and test this so that the Appeal Court can deliver a judgment on whether the original conviction was safe. This is too important to founder on a technicality.'
If Mr Megrahi were to die during the course of the appeal, it would be possible for any person with a legitimate interest (eg his wife or his children) to apply to the court to be allowed to continue the appeal. This issue is dealt with in an earlier post on this blog which can be read here.
The Sunday Express today runs a story featuring the views of Daniel Kawczynski MP, chairman of the all-party Libya group in the UK Parliament. He contends that there should be no question of Mr Megrahi's returning to Libya until that country resumes cooperation with the UK police investigating the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan People's Bureau in London on 17 April 1984. The article reads in part:
'Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been accused of abandoning the bid to nail the killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, shot dead by a Libyan diplomat 25 years ago.
'Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said the Foreign Office was now afraid to “rock the boat” over the notorious murder, for fear of jeopardising lucrative trade deals with Colonel Gadaffi’s regime. (...)
'Mr Kawzcynski, who is in close contact with the Fletcher family, said the British government should withdraw a deal that could see the Lockerbie bomber returned to Libya until co-operation with the police is restored. (...)
'Under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement signed this month, cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people at Lockerbie, could be returned to Tripoli.
'Mr Kawzcynski said: “If he is to be returned then the British government should be seeking the killer of Yvonne Fletcher in exchange.
'“The Libyans are not being given enough incentive to co-operate.”
'A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office last night insisted that securing full co-operation with Libya over the investigation remained “a key objective in our relations”.
'She added: “The Government is conscious that the investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher has not moved forward as quickly as we had hoped and remains unsolved.
'“We continue to make every effort to engage with the Libyan government on this issue and repeatedly raise the case during high-level bilateral visits. We are very aware of the terrible pain caused by Libya’s actions in the past, not least to the Fletcher family.”'
'Your editorial contains the words "Any decision to free the prisoner…" (Leader, 10 May). As I understand it the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya under the recently signed agreement between Libya and the UK allows a prisoner of Libyan nationality, convicted and imprisoned in the UK, to be transferred to Libya after a certain time spent in a UK jail to serve out the rest of his sentence in a Libyan prison, and that is not the same as freeing the prisoner.
'Perhaps imprisonment for Megrahi in Libya would be different from, perhaps better than, the conditions he experiences in Greenock, but there have been precedents in the past where Britons found guilty and imprisoned abroad have been transferred to the UK to serve the remainder of their sentences in UK prisons.
'Your editorial talks about a question mark hanging over Scottish justice. I would agree that this must be avoided at all costs, but there seem to be many obstacles which might be in the way of achieving this. The jurisdiction of the Scottish Appeal Court requires Megrahi to be physically present in Scotland during the duration of the appeal, which might take a year to come to a conclusion.
'It seems to me to be absolutely vital that the new information which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board has provided for the current appeal must somehow be brought into the public domain. At the moment it seems that Megrahi must abandon his appeal if he is to obtain his wish to be transferred to Libya and so the information would not be revealed. What would happen if he decides to stay in Scotland but dies before the court can deliver a judgment? Would any new evidence which hadn't been presented by then be lost? We know now that new evidence is available and it seems to me that, to preserve the reputation of Scottish justice, means must be found to present and test this so that the Appeal Court can deliver a judgment on whether the original conviction was safe. This is too important to founder on a technicality.'
If Mr Megrahi were to die during the course of the appeal, it would be possible for any person with a legitimate interest (eg his wife or his children) to apply to the court to be allowed to continue the appeal. This issue is dealt with in an earlier post on this blog which can be read here.
The Sunday Express today runs a story featuring the views of Daniel Kawczynski MP, chairman of the all-party Libya group in the UK Parliament. He contends that there should be no question of Mr Megrahi's returning to Libya until that country resumes cooperation with the UK police investigating the shooting of WPC Yvonne Fletcher outside the Libyan People's Bureau in London on 17 April 1984. The article reads in part:
'Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been accused of abandoning the bid to nail the killer of WPC Yvonne Fletcher, shot dead by a Libyan diplomat 25 years ago.
'Tory MP Daniel Kawczynski said the Foreign Office was now afraid to “rock the boat” over the notorious murder, for fear of jeopardising lucrative trade deals with Colonel Gadaffi’s regime. (...)
'Mr Kawzcynski, who is in close contact with the Fletcher family, said the British government should withdraw a deal that could see the Lockerbie bomber returned to Libya until co-operation with the police is restored. (...)
'Under the terms of the prisoner transfer agreement signed this month, cancer-stricken Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, who was convicted of the murder of 270 people at Lockerbie, could be returned to Tripoli.
'Mr Kawzcynski said: “If he is to be returned then the British government should be seeking the killer of Yvonne Fletcher in exchange.
'“The Libyans are not being given enough incentive to co-operate.”
'A spokeswoman for the Foreign Office last night insisted that securing full co-operation with Libya over the investigation remained “a key objective in our relations”.
'She added: “The Government is conscious that the investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher has not moved forward as quickly as we had hoped and remains unsolved.
'“We continue to make every effort to engage with the Libyan government on this issue and repeatedly raise the case during high-level bilateral visits. We are very aware of the terrible pain caused by Libya’s actions in the past, not least to the Fletcher family.”'
Saturday 16 May 2009
Pan Am Flight 103: Flimsy justice
[What follows is an editorial from the Pittsburgh Tribune.]
Libya is taking steps to welcome home one of its own -- the only person ever convicted of blowing Pan Am Flight 103 from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. His transfer would seal the mockery of justice for 270 victims, including four Western Pennsylvanians.
"Justice" is why Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, has appealed for the second time his 2001 conviction. But he'll forgo that formality, and supposedly drop his appeal, if Britain allows his transfer from Scotland to Libya -- where he would "serve" the remainder of his 27-year sentence. Reportedly he's dying of cancer.
Even as his appeal goes forward, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has raised new questions about evidence in the 1988 jetliner bombing. Which might explain why Britain signed a prisoner-transfer agreement with Libya. The transfer application could take 90 days.
"(Mr. Megrahi) told me he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," says Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi, leader of a Libyan delegation to London. That's a far more humane fate than the jetliner's victims received.
Could Megrahi's return be, as some Libyan commentators suggest, a quid pro quo to Western companies for Libya's oil and gas reserves? Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi already has paid $2.7 billion to the victims' families to make the Lockerbie bombing go away.
Flimsy justice is a pathetic response to despicable terrorism. And that only emboldens tomorrow's terrorists.
Libya is taking steps to welcome home one of its own -- the only person ever convicted of blowing Pan Am Flight 103 from the sky over Lockerbie, Scotland. His transfer would seal the mockery of justice for 270 victims, including four Western Pennsylvanians.
"Justice" is why Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, 57, has appealed for the second time his 2001 conviction. But he'll forgo that formality, and supposedly drop his appeal, if Britain allows his transfer from Scotland to Libya -- where he would "serve" the remainder of his 27-year sentence. Reportedly he's dying of cancer.
Even as his appeal goes forward, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has raised new questions about evidence in the 1988 jetliner bombing. Which might explain why Britain signed a prisoner-transfer agreement with Libya. The transfer application could take 90 days.
"(Mr. Megrahi) told me he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," says Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi, leader of a Libyan delegation to London. That's a far more humane fate than the jetliner's victims received.
Could Megrahi's return be, as some Libyan commentators suggest, a quid pro quo to Western companies for Libya's oil and gas reserves? Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi already has paid $2.7 billion to the victims' families to make the Lockerbie bombing go away.
Flimsy justice is a pathetic response to despicable terrorism. And that only emboldens tomorrow's terrorists.
Friday 15 May 2009
The views of the UK's first ambassador to Tripoli after restoration of diplomatic relations
In 1999, Libya delivered the Lockerbie suspects to stand trial before a Scottish court convened in the Netherlands, which acquitted Mr Fhimah but sentenced Megrahi to life in prison with a minimum of 27 years. Meanwhile, Libya began secret talks with the United States and repaired ties with Britain.
“Relations developed quite quickly,” said Sir Richard Dalton, posted to Libya in 1999 as Britain’s first ambassador in 15 years and currently an analyst with Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London. “The Libyans were acting responsibly and had fulfilled their obligations in the case of the Lockerbie incident.”
Rapprochement has seen Libya pay US$2.7 billion (Dh9.9bn) to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and renounce attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. UN and US sanctions have been lifted, and a US Embassy reopened in Tripoli, the Libyan capital. (...)
“The Libyans have maintained that Megrahi is innocent, and on humanitarian grounds they’d like to see him restored to his family in Libya,” Sir Richard said.
The move is likely to win applause for their government from ordinary Libyans, said Ronald Bruce St John, a Libya expert and analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, a think tank that is part of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
“There’s considerable support in Libya for the argument that the government was not involved in Lockerbie.”
However, Tripoli’s request leaves Megrahi in a bind. If he goes home, he will have to drop his current attempt to appeal his conviction. If he stays to fight his case, he may die before its conclusion.
The affair has caused a stir in Britain, where Scottish politicians have voiced dismay at the prospect of Megrahi being turned loose. Some families of Lockerbie victims believe he may be innocent, but others want him to stay in Scottish custody.
“We want the appeal to go through because it’s the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died,” said Barrie Berkley, an Englishman whose son Alistair was killed in the bombing, quoted by the BBC.
A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, said Sir Richard. “But there would be consequences.”
Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects, Sir Richard said.
A spokesman for the US Embassy in London said Washington wanted Megrahi to remain in Scottish hands, while Britain’s foreign office declined to comment on the affair. (...)
His case is currently being examined by the Scottish authorities, said Fiona Wilson, a spokeswoman for Scotland’s devolved government.
“You have to look at Lockerbie as the last remaining unpleasantness between Britain and Libya,” Dr St John said. “They’d like to get it off the table.”
[From an article by John Thorne, foreign correspendent of The National newspaper, Abu Dhabi.]
“Relations developed quite quickly,” said Sir Richard Dalton, posted to Libya in 1999 as Britain’s first ambassador in 15 years and currently an analyst with Chatham House, an international affairs think tank in London. “The Libyans were acting responsibly and had fulfilled their obligations in the case of the Lockerbie incident.”
Rapprochement has seen Libya pay US$2.7 billion (Dh9.9bn) to the families of victims of the Lockerbie bombing and renounce attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. UN and US sanctions have been lifted, and a US Embassy reopened in Tripoli, the Libyan capital. (...)
“The Libyans have maintained that Megrahi is innocent, and on humanitarian grounds they’d like to see him restored to his family in Libya,” Sir Richard said.
The move is likely to win applause for their government from ordinary Libyans, said Ronald Bruce St John, a Libya expert and analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus, a think tank that is part of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies.
“There’s considerable support in Libya for the argument that the government was not involved in Lockerbie.”
However, Tripoli’s request leaves Megrahi in a bind. If he goes home, he will have to drop his current attempt to appeal his conviction. If he stays to fight his case, he may die before its conclusion.
The affair has caused a stir in Britain, where Scottish politicians have voiced dismay at the prospect of Megrahi being turned loose. Some families of Lockerbie victims believe he may be innocent, but others want him to stay in Scottish custody.
“We want the appeal to go through because it’s the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died,” said Barrie Berkley, an Englishman whose son Alistair was killed in the bombing, quoted by the BBC.
A decision by the Scottish authorities to keep Megrahi would not seriously derail Britain’s relations with Libya, said Sir Richard. “But there would be consequences.”
Among them is the possibility that a successful appeal by Megrahi would plunge Britain, the US and Libya once again into the fraught environment of an international investigation to find new Lockerbie suspects, Sir Richard said.
A spokesman for the US Embassy in London said Washington wanted Megrahi to remain in Scottish hands, while Britain’s foreign office declined to comment on the affair. (...)
His case is currently being examined by the Scottish authorities, said Fiona Wilson, a spokeswoman for Scotland’s devolved government.
“You have to look at Lockerbie as the last remaining unpleasantness between Britain and Libya,” Dr St John said. “They’d like to get it off the table.”
[From an article by John Thorne, foreign correspendent of The National newspaper, Abu Dhabi.]
Thursday 14 May 2009
Al-Megrahi has alternative to non-choice over appeal
If it really is true that Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi is not guilty, it must be very difficult for him to agree to take advantage of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (your report, 7 May).
Why would he trust a deal under which he would have to renounce his appeal in the hope that ministers of the state, which he would see as having wrongly convicted him, would later agree to his transfer?
He has an alternative. When he applied previously for bail on compassionate grounds because of his illness, this was rejected but he was told that his lawyers could apply again if his circumstances changed.
On 8 May, we heard in court that he was in too much discomfort from his illness, and in too great a need for further treatment urgently this week, to be able even to listen to the court proceedings over the line arranged for him between the court and Greenock prison.
This surely is a grave change of circumstances.
If he applied again, maybe bail would be approved, he has little to lose by doing so, the decision by their lordships could be quickly reached, and if positive, the bail conditions would require him to remain in Scotland, but he could be with his family at the house which is already available for them.
Separation from his family is known to be a great stress for him. Reducing his stress level would be likely to prolong his life. Guilty or innocent, it also seems the humane, Christian and merciful thing to do.
Were he to die in prison during the appeal, he will surely be seen as a martyr, Scots law would take further criticism, and there would be at least further delay in examining the totality of the evidence now available.
Those who, like us, seek the truth in this terrible case should be greatly relieved were bail granted, since he would not be required to withdraw his appeal, and we are desperately keen to see all the evidence examined again in the appeal court under Scots law as soon as possible.
There also appears to be no obvious alternative to the appeal for the Scottish legal system to redress the grave damage which its reputation has sustained, particularly abroad, through the verdict reached on the basis of the evidence at Zeist.
[This is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Scotsman. There is, of course, the further alternative of an application to the Scottish Government for compassionate release on licence; this is dealt with here.]
Why would he trust a deal under which he would have to renounce his appeal in the hope that ministers of the state, which he would see as having wrongly convicted him, would later agree to his transfer?
He has an alternative. When he applied previously for bail on compassionate grounds because of his illness, this was rejected but he was told that his lawyers could apply again if his circumstances changed.
On 8 May, we heard in court that he was in too much discomfort from his illness, and in too great a need for further treatment urgently this week, to be able even to listen to the court proceedings over the line arranged for him between the court and Greenock prison.
This surely is a grave change of circumstances.
If he applied again, maybe bail would be approved, he has little to lose by doing so, the decision by their lordships could be quickly reached, and if positive, the bail conditions would require him to remain in Scotland, but he could be with his family at the house which is already available for them.
Separation from his family is known to be a great stress for him. Reducing his stress level would be likely to prolong his life. Guilty or innocent, it also seems the humane, Christian and merciful thing to do.
Were he to die in prison during the appeal, he will surely be seen as a martyr, Scots law would take further criticism, and there would be at least further delay in examining the totality of the evidence now available.
Those who, like us, seek the truth in this terrible case should be greatly relieved were bail granted, since he would not be required to withdraw his appeal, and we are desperately keen to see all the evidence examined again in the appeal court under Scots law as soon as possible.
There also appears to be no obvious alternative to the appeal for the Scottish legal system to redress the grave damage which its reputation has sustained, particularly abroad, through the verdict reached on the basis of the evidence at Zeist.
[This is the text of a letter from Dr Jim Swire published in today's edition of The Scotsman. There is, of course, the further alternative of an application to the Scottish Government for compassionate release on licence; this is dealt with here.]
The appeal: week three
The first session of Abdelbaset Megrah's appeal has been continuing in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh though, until today, there has been no media coverage that I have been able to trace on the internet. However, a report has now appeared on The Herald's website. It reads in part:
'The Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the Lockerbie bombing made an unexplained trip to Malta using a false passport and an assumed name, appeal judges were told yesterday.
'He arrived the day the bomb that killed 270 people was planted at the island's Luqa Airport and left the following morning, said Ronnie Clancy QC.
'"At no stage was any significant evidence offered as to the issue or use of the passport in any innocent connection.
'"The only evidence about that was a false denial of the possession of the passport."
'Despite rumours that have been circulating for days that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will drop his appeal in exchange for a return to Libya, the hearing continued at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
'Defence QC Maggie Scott has been arguing that no reasonable jury would have found al Megrahi guilty and that there was not sufficient evidence, in law, to convict him.
'Mr Clancy, for the Crown, has now begun the task of trying to demolish the defence claims by reminding the five appeal judges of the reasons why their colleagues found al Megrahi guilty in 2001.
'"No explanation for the visit to Malta the evening before the device was on the plane and departed for Tripoli the following morning," said Mr Clancy.
'"It is clear beyond doubt that the court is linking the use of the passport with the commission of the offence," he said.
'If the Libyan wins this round of his long-running appeal he could go home a free man. If the court, led by Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, rules against him, al Megrahi still has other challenges to his conviction that are yet to be argued.'
[As regards the coded -- not false -- passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding that the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal; and they have pointed out that although Megrahi travelled under a coded passport, he stayed in a hotel in Malta under his own name.]
'The Libyan intelligence officer convicted of the Lockerbie bombing made an unexplained trip to Malta using a false passport and an assumed name, appeal judges were told yesterday.
'He arrived the day the bomb that killed 270 people was planted at the island's Luqa Airport and left the following morning, said Ronnie Clancy QC.
'"At no stage was any significant evidence offered as to the issue or use of the passport in any innocent connection.
'"The only evidence about that was a false denial of the possession of the passport."
'Despite rumours that have been circulating for days that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi will drop his appeal in exchange for a return to Libya, the hearing continued at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh. (...)
'Defence QC Maggie Scott has been arguing that no reasonable jury would have found al Megrahi guilty and that there was not sufficient evidence, in law, to convict him.
'Mr Clancy, for the Crown, has now begun the task of trying to demolish the defence claims by reminding the five appeal judges of the reasons why their colleagues found al Megrahi guilty in 2001.
'"No explanation for the visit to Malta the evening before the device was on the plane and departed for Tripoli the following morning," said Mr Clancy.
'"It is clear beyond doubt that the court is linking the use of the passport with the commission of the offence," he said.
'If the Libyan wins this round of his long-running appeal he could go home a free man. If the court, led by Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton, rules against him, al Megrahi still has other challenges to his conviction that are yet to be argued.'
[As regards the coded -- not false -- passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding that the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal; and they have pointed out that although Megrahi travelled under a coded passport, he stayed in a hotel in Malta under his own name.]
Monday 11 May 2009
Marquise and Swire on the Malta connection
The website of Malta Today publishes opinion pieces by FBI Lockerbie investigator Richard Marquise and by Dr Jim Swire, father of Flora who died aboard Pan Am 103. Mr Marquise's article on the credibility of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci can be read here; and Dr Swire's on his belief that the bomb did not leave from Malta here.
Sunday 10 May 2009
Lockerbie bomber Megrahi may be allowed home
Scottish ministers consider releasing Libyan convicted of atrocity on compassionate grounds
Jason Allardyce and Mark Macaskill
The Scottish government is considering whether the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be set free.
Ministers are examining the possibility of giving Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi early release on compassionate grounds instead of a prisoner transfer requested by the Libyan government last week.
Under the transfer deal, brokered by London and Tripoli, prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. (...)
According to senior government sources, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, believes an alternative would be to allow him to leave on humanitarian grounds while allowing his appeal to continue, if necessary by his family after he dies. (...)
Alex Salmond is believed to harbour doubts about the strength of the case against Megrahi. Last week the first minister said he wanted to see the prisoner face “due process” through the Scottish courts.
A source close to Salmond said that could involve releasing him “on licence” under the supervision of the Libyan authorities.
The proposal was welcomed by Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash and who has since pursued a tireless quest for information about the bombing.
“This is a genuine alternative for him. The dropping of an appeal would be a disaster for those who seek the truth. We want to see evidence old and new exposed in court,” he said. (...)
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who helped to broker Megrahi’s original trial, said: “In my view, that’s the ideal solution.
“The problem up until now is that compassionate release is not granted unless the individual has three months or less to live and cancer specialists are very wary of getting it wrong. I understand that his condition has rapidly deteriorated, so a specialist may well now be of the opinion that he is ill enough to be released.”
However, Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, warned against giving Megrahi special treatment.
“There has to be a presumption that Megrahi will finish his sentence in Scotland unless it can be proved that there are compelling reasons why not,” he said. “His case must not be handled any differently from anyone else in similar circumstances and there would be great resentment if this was to be the case.
“While there is a very voluble, eloquent and no doubt sincere minority of people who want him released, many of the relatives of the deceased wish him to spend the rest of his life in jail and they are not receiving the same attention.”
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said releasing Megrahi would be an “act of betrayal” by the Scottish government.
“The deal that the Scottish and US authorities agreed was that he would serve out his term in Scotland. He is right where he belongs.
“If they release him back to Libya, that’s a bad joke. The families would feel immensely betrayed. There will be a lot of anger.”
[The above are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times (UK). The full text can be read here.
A further long article in the same newspaper entitled "Focus: To free or not to free Megrahi" can be read here.
The relevant statutory provisions relating to compassionate release (as distinct from prisoner transfer) are to be found in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3 of which provides as follows:
'Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
'(1) The [Scottish Ministers] may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
'(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the [Scottish Ministers] shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.'
There is a practice guideline -- not a rule of law -- that prisoners who are terminally ill may be released when they have three months or less to live.]
Jason Allardyce and Mark Macaskill
The Scottish government is considering whether the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing should be set free.
Ministers are examining the possibility of giving Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi early release on compassionate grounds instead of a prisoner transfer requested by the Libyan government last week.
Under the transfer deal, brokered by London and Tripoli, prisoners cannot leave the country while criminal proceedings are ongoing. (...)
According to senior government sources, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice secretary, believes an alternative would be to allow him to leave on humanitarian grounds while allowing his appeal to continue, if necessary by his family after he dies. (...)
Alex Salmond is believed to harbour doubts about the strength of the case against Megrahi. Last week the first minister said he wanted to see the prisoner face “due process” through the Scottish courts.
A source close to Salmond said that could involve releasing him “on licence” under the supervision of the Libyan authorities.
The proposal was welcomed by Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the crash and who has since pursued a tireless quest for information about the bombing.
“This is a genuine alternative for him. The dropping of an appeal would be a disaster for those who seek the truth. We want to see evidence old and new exposed in court,” he said. (...)
Robert Black, the Edinburgh law professor who helped to broker Megrahi’s original trial, said: “In my view, that’s the ideal solution.
“The problem up until now is that compassionate release is not granted unless the individual has three months or less to live and cancer specialists are very wary of getting it wrong. I understand that his condition has rapidly deteriorated, so a specialist may well now be of the opinion that he is ill enough to be released.”
However, Bill Aitken, justice spokesman for the Scottish Conservatives, warned against giving Megrahi special treatment.
“There has to be a presumption that Megrahi will finish his sentence in Scotland unless it can be proved that there are compelling reasons why not,” he said. “His case must not be handled any differently from anyone else in similar circumstances and there would be great resentment if this was to be the case.
“While there is a very voluble, eloquent and no doubt sincere minority of people who want him released, many of the relatives of the deceased wish him to spend the rest of his life in jail and they are not receiving the same attention.”
Bob Monetti, whose son Rick was among the victims of the bombing, said releasing Megrahi would be an “act of betrayal” by the Scottish government.
“The deal that the Scottish and US authorities agreed was that he would serve out his term in Scotland. He is right where he belongs.
“If they release him back to Libya, that’s a bad joke. The families would feel immensely betrayed. There will be a lot of anger.”
[The above are excerpts from an article in today's edition of The Sunday Times (UK). The full text can be read here.
A further long article in the same newspaper entitled "Focus: To free or not to free Megrahi" can be read here.
The relevant statutory provisions relating to compassionate release (as distinct from prisoner transfer) are to be found in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (c 9), section 3 of which provides as follows:
'Power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds
'(1) The [Scottish Ministers] may at any time, if satisfied that there are compassionate grounds justifying the release of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment, release him on licence.
'(2) Before so releasing any long-term prisoner or any life prisoner, the [Scottish Ministers] shall consult the Parole Board unless the circumstances are such as to render consultation impracticable.'
There is a practice guideline -- not a rule of law -- that prisoners who are terminally ill may be released when they have three months or less to live.]
From The Sunday Times, Malta
The judges got it wrong
Ian Ferguson
In an article for The Sunday Times, British journalist and author Ian Ferguson, who has covered the Lockerbie case extensively internationally for TV, radio and newspapers, casts doubt over the Malta-link to Lockerbie.
A German expert has raised fresh controversy on a crucial piece of evidence in the conviction of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber.
The verdict relied heavily on the judges' acceptance of a brief computer printout of the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport. The prosecution had argued it proved an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb was transferred from Air Malta flight KM180 to the Pan Am flight 103 to London on December 21, 1988.
The expert who helped design the baggage system in place at Frankfurt airport in 1988 and familiar with the operating software has now said: "The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong."
In the original trial, the Crown could offer no evidence of how the bag got aboard the Air Malta flight in the first place. Malta had presented records showing that no unaccompanied baggage was on the Air Malta flight in question.
The baggage reconciliation system at Malta's airport did not only rely on computer lists. Personnel also counted all pieces of baggage, manually checking them off against passenger records. Maltese baggage loaders had been prepared to testify, yet they were never called as witnesses.
In spite of a lack of evidence that the baggage containing the bomb actually left Malta, the judges concluded that it must have been the case, based on an interpretation of the computer print out from Frankfurt.
The hotly disputed computer printout was saved by Bogomira Erac, a technician at Frankfurt airport. She testified at the original trial under the pseudonym Madame X. One of the reasons this computer printout was so controversial was that although Ms Erac thought it important to save, she then tossed it in her locker and went on holiday.
Only on her return did she hand it to her supervisor who gave it to the Bundeskiminalmt (BKA), the German Federal Police. The BKA did not disclose this printout to Scottish and American investigators for several months.
The German expert has now examined all of the evidence that related to the Frankfurt baggage system placed before the court in the original trial. The expert, who agreed to review this evidence on condition of anonymity, spent six months examining the data.
Although he demanded anonymity, he agreed that if a formal approach was made by Mr Al-Megrahi's lawyers or the Scottish Criminal Cases review commission, he would meet them.
He was puzzled when he saw how short the printout out was and explained that there was no need to print a very small extract from the baggage system traffic, as a full back-up tape was made. This would have shown all the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport that day.
When it was explained that the court heard that the system was purged every few days and that no back-up tape existed, he said: "This is not true."
"Of course it is possible no back-up tape was made for that particular day but that day would have been the first and only day in the history of Frankfurt Airport when not one piece of baggage or cargo was lost, rerouted or misplaced," he added.
He went on to say that FAG, the company that operated Frankfurt Airport, needed these tapes to defend against insurance claims for lost or damaged cargo.
The expert maintains that even with his expert knowledge of the system he could not draw the conclusion reached by the Lockerbie trial judges in 2001.
"They would have needed much more information of the baggage movements, not this very narrow time frame," he said.
Questions are now raised about why Mr Al-Megrahi's legal team at the trial in the Netherlands decided to accept and rely upon a report on the baggage system compiled by a BKA officer and not find an expert on the system. The Scottish police also did not seek to interview those people who designed and installed the system.
Jim Swire, whose daughter lost her life in the bombing and who has been campaigning relentlessly for the truth to emerge, explained there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, early on December 21, 1988, in the relevant area of Terminal 3. This was followed by the sighting (before the flight from Frankfurt had even landed) of an unauthorised bag within the very container where the explosion later occurred.
"What we need now is an equally clear explanation as to why the information about the Heathrow break-in was concealed for 13 years," he said.
Dr Swire added: "At last, the time has come to turn away from Malta and Frankfurt and look a lot closer to home at Heathrow airport for the truth, for that is what we still seek.
Scottish legal expert says Lockerbie verdict was flawed
'No evidence the bomb left from Malta'
Caroline Muscat, Mark Micallef
A former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial has told The Sunday Times there was never any evidence that the bomb which claimed the lives of 270 people actually left from Malta.
The trial held in the Netherlands under Scottish law led to the conviction in 2001 of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the bomber who placed the explosive on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. It was said that the suitcase containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to Pan Am flight 103A which then headed for London before continuing to the US.
"There is no acceptable evidence that the bomb left Malta. There never was. There was never an explanation given by the judges to contradict the clear evidence from Malta," Prof. Robert Black said.
Malta presented records at the original trial showing there had been no unaccompanied bags on the flight.
Prof. Black echoed comments made last week by a representative of the families of the British victims, Jim Swire, who lost his 24-year-old daughter Flora when Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The legal team representing Mr Al-Megrahi, who is eight years into a 27-year sentence for his part in the bombing, began appeal proceedings in Edinburgh on April 28. They are arguing that the evidence against him in the original trial was "wholly circumstantial".
Mr Al-Megrahi was told last year he is dying. Doctors discovered he has advanced and aggressive prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. He has a few months left to live, a diagnosis confirmed by two cancer specialists.
The Maltese government yesterday told The Sunday Times it was monitoring the situation, while Air Malta said it had no comment to make.
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
According to Prof. Black the appeal took so long to reach the court because the prosecutors and the British Foreign Office used delaying tactics.
"They refused the defence access to documents they were entitled to see and that were an important part of the conclusions reached."
Documentation sought by the defence team includes a fax they say questions the original testimony of key Maltese witness Tony Gauci, who said he sold clothes to Mr Al-Megrahi from his shop in Sliema. It was said the suitcase containing the bomb on the Pan Am flight included those clothes.
The evidence the defence team is seeking relates to contact between police and other investigators with another potential Maltese witness, David Wright. They believe Mr Wright may have material evidence that calls into question Mr Gauci's statement.
At the start of the appeal, the judges ordered prosecutors to hand over 45 key pieces of evidence to the defence in what was described by British newspaper The Herald as "an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office".
Prof. Black was not surprised: "The truth would be extremely embarrassing from the point of view of saving what is left of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Also, the truth would not place Britain's reputation in a very good light."
He insisted that it was in the interest of the British government that this appeal would "quietly go away".
"The easiest way for that to happen is for Mr Al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal and be transferred back to Libya."
Libyan authorities recently applied for Mr Al-Megrahi's transfer to Libya. It came after a prisoner transfer agreement was ratified by the UK and Libyan governments two weeks ago.
A few weeks earlier, the Westminister Joint Select Committee on Human Rights had called for the ratification of the agreement to be delayed, pending investigation into concerns over the content of the treaty. But Jack Straw, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, insisted the treaty must go ahead.
This prompted the campaign group UK Families Flight 103 to issue a statement accusing Mr Straw of hypocrisy, saying the agreement cleared the way for the man convicted of the bombing to return home before the truth emerged. But Kathleen Flynn, from New Jersey, US, who also lost her son John Patrick to the bombing, said she would be horrified if Mr Al-Megrahi is released to the Libyan government.
"This man is not a political prisoner, he is a murderer and there is a big difference... to me it is inconceivable how this idea could be entertained," she told The Sunday Times.
"He is likely to be received as a national hero in Libya," she added.
Unlike Dr Swire, she has full confidence in the guilty verdict: "The person responsible for a crime of this nature should serve his entire sentence, while given all the medical attention he needs."
Asked what would happen if the transfer is given the go ahead, she said: "I can assure you we will not just say au revoir... we have been successful in the past 20 years at making sure justice is done."
According to Scottish law, the application for transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, meaning Mr Al-Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can go home.
Although Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer, his lawyers did not confirm whether he would choose to go home. If he does, he will remain a condemned man and Malta will remain implicated in a terrorist act that killed 270 people.
[The first of these articles can be accessed here; and the second here.]
Ian Ferguson
In an article for The Sunday Times, British journalist and author Ian Ferguson, who has covered the Lockerbie case extensively internationally for TV, radio and newspapers, casts doubt over the Malta-link to Lockerbie.
A German expert has raised fresh controversy on a crucial piece of evidence in the conviction of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the Lockerbie bomber.
The verdict relied heavily on the judges' acceptance of a brief computer printout of the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport. The prosecution had argued it proved an unaccompanied bag containing the bomb was transferred from Air Malta flight KM180 to the Pan Am flight 103 to London on December 21, 1988.
The expert who helped design the baggage system in place at Frankfurt airport in 1988 and familiar with the operating software has now said: "The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong."
In the original trial, the Crown could offer no evidence of how the bag got aboard the Air Malta flight in the first place. Malta had presented records showing that no unaccompanied baggage was on the Air Malta flight in question.
The baggage reconciliation system at Malta's airport did not only rely on computer lists. Personnel also counted all pieces of baggage, manually checking them off against passenger records. Maltese baggage loaders had been prepared to testify, yet they were never called as witnesses.
In spite of a lack of evidence that the baggage containing the bomb actually left Malta, the judges concluded that it must have been the case, based on an interpretation of the computer print out from Frankfurt.
The hotly disputed computer printout was saved by Bogomira Erac, a technician at Frankfurt airport. She testified at the original trial under the pseudonym Madame X. One of the reasons this computer printout was so controversial was that although Ms Erac thought it important to save, she then tossed it in her locker and went on holiday.
Only on her return did she hand it to her supervisor who gave it to the Bundeskiminalmt (BKA), the German Federal Police. The BKA did not disclose this printout to Scottish and American investigators for several months.
The German expert has now examined all of the evidence that related to the Frankfurt baggage system placed before the court in the original trial. The expert, who agreed to review this evidence on condition of anonymity, spent six months examining the data.
Although he demanded anonymity, he agreed that if a formal approach was made by Mr Al-Megrahi's lawyers or the Scottish Criminal Cases review commission, he would meet them.
He was puzzled when he saw how short the printout out was and explained that there was no need to print a very small extract from the baggage system traffic, as a full back-up tape was made. This would have shown all the baggage movements at Frankfurt airport that day.
When it was explained that the court heard that the system was purged every few days and that no back-up tape existed, he said: "This is not true."
"Of course it is possible no back-up tape was made for that particular day but that day would have been the first and only day in the history of Frankfurt Airport when not one piece of baggage or cargo was lost, rerouted or misplaced," he added.
He went on to say that FAG, the company that operated Frankfurt Airport, needed these tapes to defend against insurance claims for lost or damaged cargo.
The expert maintains that even with his expert knowledge of the system he could not draw the conclusion reached by the Lockerbie trial judges in 2001.
"They would have needed much more information of the baggage movements, not this very narrow time frame," he said.
Questions are now raised about why Mr Al-Megrahi's legal team at the trial in the Netherlands decided to accept and rely upon a report on the baggage system compiled by a BKA officer and not find an expert on the system. The Scottish police also did not seek to interview those people who designed and installed the system.
Jim Swire, whose daughter lost her life in the bombing and who has been campaigning relentlessly for the truth to emerge, explained there was a break-in at Heathrow airport, early on December 21, 1988, in the relevant area of Terminal 3. This was followed by the sighting (before the flight from Frankfurt had even landed) of an unauthorised bag within the very container where the explosion later occurred.
"What we need now is an equally clear explanation as to why the information about the Heathrow break-in was concealed for 13 years," he said.
Dr Swire added: "At last, the time has come to turn away from Malta and Frankfurt and look a lot closer to home at Heathrow airport for the truth, for that is what we still seek.
Scottish legal expert says Lockerbie verdict was flawed
'No evidence the bomb left from Malta'
Caroline Muscat, Mark Micallef
A former Scottish judge who was the architect of the original Lockerbie trial has told The Sunday Times there was never any evidence that the bomb which claimed the lives of 270 people actually left from Malta.
The trial held in the Netherlands under Scottish law led to the conviction in 2001 of Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi as the bomber who placed the explosive on Air Malta flight KM180 on December 21, 1988. It was said that the suitcase containing the bomb was transferred in Frankfurt to Pan Am flight 103A which then headed for London before continuing to the US.
"There is no acceptable evidence that the bomb left Malta. There never was. There was never an explanation given by the judges to contradict the clear evidence from Malta," Prof. Robert Black said.
Malta presented records at the original trial showing there had been no unaccompanied bags on the flight.
Prof. Black echoed comments made last week by a representative of the families of the British victims, Jim Swire, who lost his 24-year-old daughter Flora when Pan Am Flight 103 from London Heathrow to New York's JFK airport exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.
The legal team representing Mr Al-Megrahi, who is eight years into a 27-year sentence for his part in the bombing, began appeal proceedings in Edinburgh on April 28. They are arguing that the evidence against him in the original trial was "wholly circumstantial".
Mr Al-Megrahi was told last year he is dying. Doctors discovered he has advanced and aggressive prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. He has a few months left to live, a diagnosis confirmed by two cancer specialists.
The Maltese government yesterday told The Sunday Times it was monitoring the situation, while Air Malta said it had no comment to make.
The ongoing appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation that concluded Mr Al-Megrahi may have suffered a "miscarriage of justice".
According to Prof. Black the appeal took so long to reach the court because the prosecutors and the British Foreign Office used delaying tactics.
"They refused the defence access to documents they were entitled to see and that were an important part of the conclusions reached."
Documentation sought by the defence team includes a fax they say questions the original testimony of key Maltese witness Tony Gauci, who said he sold clothes to Mr Al-Megrahi from his shop in Sliema. It was said the suitcase containing the bomb on the Pan Am flight included those clothes.
The evidence the defence team is seeking relates to contact between police and other investigators with another potential Maltese witness, David Wright. They believe Mr Wright may have material evidence that calls into question Mr Gauci's statement.
At the start of the appeal, the judges ordered prosecutors to hand over 45 key pieces of evidence to the defence in what was described by British newspaper The Herald as "an embarrassing setback for the Crown Office".
Prof. Black was not surprised: "The truth would be extremely embarrassing from the point of view of saving what is left of the reputation of the Scottish criminal justice system. Also, the truth would not place Britain's reputation in a very good light."
He insisted that it was in the interest of the British government that this appeal would "quietly go away".
"The easiest way for that to happen is for Mr Al-Megrahi to abandon his appeal and be transferred back to Libya."
Libyan authorities recently applied for Mr Al-Megrahi's transfer to Libya. It came after a prisoner transfer agreement was ratified by the UK and Libyan governments two weeks ago.
A few weeks earlier, the Westminister Joint Select Committee on Human Rights had called for the ratification of the agreement to be delayed, pending investigation into concerns over the content of the treaty. But Jack Straw, the UK Secretary of State for Justice, insisted the treaty must go ahead.
This prompted the campaign group UK Families Flight 103 to issue a statement accusing Mr Straw of hypocrisy, saying the agreement cleared the way for the man convicted of the bombing to return home before the truth emerged. But Kathleen Flynn, from New Jersey, US, who also lost her son John Patrick to the bombing, said she would be horrified if Mr Al-Megrahi is released to the Libyan government.
"This man is not a political prisoner, he is a murderer and there is a big difference... to me it is inconceivable how this idea could be entertained," she told The Sunday Times.
"He is likely to be received as a national hero in Libya," she added.
Unlike Dr Swire, she has full confidence in the guilty verdict: "The person responsible for a crime of this nature should serve his entire sentence, while given all the medical attention he needs."
Asked what would happen if the transfer is given the go ahead, she said: "I can assure you we will not just say au revoir... we have been successful in the past 20 years at making sure justice is done."
According to Scottish law, the application for transfer cannot be submitted while an appeal is pending, meaning Mr Al-Megrahi has to abandon his appeal before he can go home.
Although Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from terminal cancer, his lawyers did not confirm whether he would choose to go home. If he does, he will remain a condemned man and Malta will remain implicated in a terrorist act that killed 270 people.
[The first of these articles can be accessed here; and the second here.]
Reaction to the transfer application
Today's edition of Scotland on Sunday carries three articles on the Lockerbie case: a news report, a lengthy opinion piece by the Scottish Political Editor and a leader.
The news report is headed "FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction" and records the views of Richard Marquise. It reads in part:
'The Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.
'Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.
'Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.
'"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.
'"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."'
I do not quite understand how talking to Mr Marquise could have led the SCCRC to form different conclusions on the evidence that they uncovered, the materials that were not disclosed to the defence, and the factual conclusions reached by the court that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Interested readers can find details here and may also care to consult the most recent article "Lockerbie: J'accuse" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International which provides an in-depth crtique of the crucial evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The Scotland on Sunday opinion piece by Tom Peterkin is headed "Should this man, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, be freed to die with his family?" It reads in part:
'The CCTV link that connects [Megrahi's] cell with the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh lies unused as he languishes on his bed resting between hospital appointments.
'The pain also distracts him from the satellite television that keeps him in touch with the political developments that will determine what remains of his future.
'It is perhaps a strange paradox that while the Lockerbie bomber himself has been forced to avert his eyes from his own fate, the rest of the world is once again focusing on the man convicted of the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
'But the world's gaze is not solely fixed on the former Libyan intelligence agent, who, depending on your point of view, is considered to be Britain's biggest mass-murderer or the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
'International eyes are also trained on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
'The latest twist in the tortuous Lockerbie legal saga has provided Salmond with the most taxing dilemma that he has faced since he became First Minister two years ago.
'For it is now down to Salmond and MacAskill to decide whether Megrahi, 57, should remain in Scotland or go home to Libya to die. (...)
'Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister.
'The deal, in June 2007, led to Salmond's first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya.
'Ironically, it is now Salmond who has 90 days to make up his mind about Megrahi's future under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed by Blair and Gaddafi. (...)
'It is perhaps easy to see how some in London and Edinburgh would view the repatriation of Megrahi as a convenient way of solving the long-standing Lockerbie problem.
'Should Megrahi agree to drop his appeal in order to go home, a question mark would always remain over whether there had been a miscarriage of justice by the Scottish courts in the original trial. But his return would cement the improving relationship between Britain and Gaddafi – a controversial tie that could bring great economic benefits to Britain in the oil fields of Libya. (...)
'The safety of Megrahi's conviction has been a subject of huge controversy ever since he was found guilty of killing 259 aircraft passengers and 11 people on the ground in 2001 in a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.
'Professor Robert Black QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist court in The Hague, is one legal expert who believes in Megrahi's innocence.
'"So many concerns have been expressed that for all this to be swept under the carpet is not in the public interest," Black said.
'"In my view, it is in the Scottish public interest that the appeal proceeds, because it is a test of Scots Law. But I fully understand that, given Abdelbaset's state of health, his personal point of view is that he might want to return home to spend his last months with his family – that must be a very attractive proposition."
'Black's view is shared by Jim Swire, the retired GP who lost his daughter Flora when the aircraft came down.
'"At a human level, I am in favour of him being transferred because he is seriously ill," Swire said. "But it would be a bitter blow to drop the appeal, because I would like to see this evidence examined in public."
'Swire believes that the case against Megrahi is fatally flawed.
'He disputes the Camp Zeist court's view that Megrahi placed his bomb in a suitcase, wrapped in clothes he'd purchased from a shop in Malta, loaded it on to an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a second flight to London before being eventually loaded on to the doomed aircraft.
'Instead, Swire claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow Airport on the morning of the flight, which resulted in the bomb boarding the plane in London – a theory that he claims has been covered up. (...)
'There is also a belief in some quarters that the appeal could reveal details about the politics of the Lockerbie investigation that could cause embarrassment in Washington, London and Edinburgh.
'But those who led the investigation are absolutely confident that the conviction is safe.
'"I am convinced of the evidence," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the investigation.
'"I am convinced the conviction is true, accurate and correct. I keep reading all these suggestions that evidence was planted, that it was manipulated, twisted and changed. But I got that evidence ready for the trial and I am absolutely convinced of its veracity and that what we collected was all accurate and correct.
'"There is so much information in the public domain that's just wrong. If you took everything published as fact, you would certainly think there was doubt. But a lot of things are published as fact that are just not true."
'Salmond will no doubt be keenly aware that many of the American victims agree wholeheartedly with Marquise's view. And there is no doubt that sending Megrahi back to Libya would trigger a huge amount of American anger and a massive diplomatic problem for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
'"I think it would be outrageous if Megrahi was sent home," said Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
'"The trial in the Hague was set up, because our Government and the British Government made statements saying that if anybody was found guilty, they would serve their prison sentence in Scotland. President Clinton and Tony Blair said that. The only way for him to be sent home would be for his miserable little carcase to go back to Libya in a pine box. The man is an unrepentant murderer."
'Megrahi's supporters also acknowledge the strength of feeling in America and the impact that could have on the Scottish ministers' decision. As Black said: "I suspect that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill's civil servants are advising them that they should grant him the repatriation. There is nothing they would like better than this to go away quietly. But they are politicians and they have to weigh up the reaction."
'Mischievously, he added: "Given that we want lots and lots of Americans to come to Scotland for the Homecoming and this would have the American media up in arms – could that have adverse consequences?" That, it has to be said, may turn out to be the least of Alex Salmond's worries.'
The SoS leader is headed "Lockerbie bomber must stay" and reads in part:
'The case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, poses a serious dilemma for Alex Salmond. But the First Minister must stand firm. Megrahi is a convicted mass murderer and must not be released unless he is cleared on appeal.
'It is difficult not to feel some empathy for the Libyan, who is seriously ill and dying of cancer. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, is just one of those who would not begrudge him the right to die in his homeland.
'There are, too, geopolitical consequences to consider. (...)
'Yet justice should be blind to all those extraneous issues, and it is the reputation of Scottish justice that should be at the forefront of Salmond's mind as he ponders his decision on whether Megrahi should stay or go. Any decision to free the prisoner at this stage would be seen in some quarters as an attempt to avoid evidence being presented in court that could embarrass the Scottish, UK and US authorities.
'Were Megrahi to be released before the appeal process had run its course, then a question mark would forever hang over Scottish justice. That is too high a price to pay to assuage our discomfort at a dying man's desire to die in the country of his birth.'
The news report is headed "FBI agent slams review of Lockerbie conviction" and records the views of Richard Marquise. It reads in part:
'The Scottish legal body which cast doubt on the safety of the Lockerbie bomber's conviction has been condemned for carrying out a "woefully inadequate" investigation by the American FBI agent in charge of the case.
'Richard Marquise claimed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission did not make thorough enough inquiries before it concluded that there were grounds for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi to appeal against his conviction.
'Marquise criticised the three-year investigation conducted by the SCCRC, the body responsible for looking into potential miscarriages of justice, because they failed to speak to him or other key people involved in the case.
'"Their 'investigation' was woefully inadequate because they never spoke with me or many others who could have shed some light on how we reached certain conclusions in the case," Marquise told Scotland on Sunday.
'"As a 31-year investigator, I could never had gotten away with conducting such an incomplete inquiry."'
I do not quite understand how talking to Mr Marquise could have led the SCCRC to form different conclusions on the evidence that they uncovered, the materials that were not disclosed to the defence, and the factual conclusions reached by the court that no reasonable tribunal could have reached. Interested readers can find details here and may also care to consult the most recent article "Lockerbie: J'accuse" by Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer on OhMyNews International which provides an in-depth crtique of the crucial evidence that led to the wrongful conviction of Abdelbaset Megrahi.
The Scotland on Sunday opinion piece by Tom Peterkin is headed "Should this man, jailed for life for the Lockerbie bombing, be freed to die with his family?" It reads in part:
'The CCTV link that connects [Megrahi's] cell with the Court of Appeal in Edinburgh lies unused as he languishes on his bed resting between hospital appointments.
'The pain also distracts him from the satellite television that keeps him in touch with the political developments that will determine what remains of his future.
'It is perhaps a strange paradox that while the Lockerbie bomber himself has been forced to avert his eyes from his own fate, the rest of the world is once again focusing on the man convicted of the murder of 270 people when Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie 20 years ago.
'But the world's gaze is not solely fixed on the former Libyan intelligence agent, who, depending on your point of view, is considered to be Britain's biggest mass-murderer or the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
'International eyes are also trained on Alex Salmond, the First Minister, and his Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill.
'The latest twist in the tortuous Lockerbie legal saga has provided Salmond with the most taxing dilemma that he has faced since he became First Minister two years ago.
'For it is now down to Salmond and MacAskill to decide whether Megrahi, 57, should remain in Scotland or go home to Libya to die. (...)
'Last week's application by the Libyan authorities to have Megrahi transferred from Scotland can be traced back to the so-called "deal in the desert" that was struck between Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and Tony Blair, the then Prime Minister.
'The deal, in June 2007, led to Salmond's first serious row with the UK Government when the First Minister protested that the Scottish authorities had not been consulted and warned that it could lead to Megrahi being transferred back to Libya.
'Ironically, it is now Salmond who has 90 days to make up his mind about Megrahi's future under the terms of the Prisoner Transfer Agreement agreed by Blair and Gaddafi. (...)
'It is perhaps easy to see how some in London and Edinburgh would view the repatriation of Megrahi as a convenient way of solving the long-standing Lockerbie problem.
'Should Megrahi agree to drop his appeal in order to go home, a question mark would always remain over whether there had been a miscarriage of justice by the Scottish courts in the original trial. But his return would cement the improving relationship between Britain and Gaddafi – a controversial tie that could bring great economic benefits to Britain in the oil fields of Libya. (...)
'The safety of Megrahi's conviction has been a subject of huge controversy ever since he was found guilty of killing 259 aircraft passengers and 11 people on the ground in 2001 in a specially convened Scottish court in the Netherlands.
'Professor Robert Black QC, one of the architects of the Camp Zeist court in The Hague, is one legal expert who believes in Megrahi's innocence.
'"So many concerns have been expressed that for all this to be swept under the carpet is not in the public interest," Black said.
'"In my view, it is in the Scottish public interest that the appeal proceeds, because it is a test of Scots Law. But I fully understand that, given Abdelbaset's state of health, his personal point of view is that he might want to return home to spend his last months with his family – that must be a very attractive proposition."
'Black's view is shared by Jim Swire, the retired GP who lost his daughter Flora when the aircraft came down.
'"At a human level, I am in favour of him being transferred because he is seriously ill," Swire said. "But it would be a bitter blow to drop the appeal, because I would like to see this evidence examined in public."
'Swire believes that the case against Megrahi is fatally flawed.
'He disputes the Camp Zeist court's view that Megrahi placed his bomb in a suitcase, wrapped in clothes he'd purchased from a shop in Malta, loaded it on to an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to a second flight to London before being eventually loaded on to the doomed aircraft.
'Instead, Swire claims that there was a break-in at Heathrow Airport on the morning of the flight, which resulted in the bomb boarding the plane in London – a theory that he claims has been covered up. (...)
'There is also a belief in some quarters that the appeal could reveal details about the politics of the Lockerbie investigation that could cause embarrassment in Washington, London and Edinburgh.
'But those who led the investigation are absolutely confident that the conviction is safe.
'"I am convinced of the evidence," said Richard Marquise, the FBI agent who led the US side of the investigation.
'"I am convinced the conviction is true, accurate and correct. I keep reading all these suggestions that evidence was planted, that it was manipulated, twisted and changed. But I got that evidence ready for the trial and I am absolutely convinced of its veracity and that what we collected was all accurate and correct.
'"There is so much information in the public domain that's just wrong. If you took everything published as fact, you would certainly think there was doubt. But a lot of things are published as fact that are just not true."
'Salmond will no doubt be keenly aware that many of the American victims agree wholeheartedly with Marquise's view. And there is no doubt that sending Megrahi back to Libya would trigger a huge amount of American anger and a massive diplomatic problem for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
'"I think it would be outrageous if Megrahi was sent home," said Frank Duggan, a Washington lawyer who is president of Victims of Pan Am Flight 103.
'"The trial in the Hague was set up, because our Government and the British Government made statements saying that if anybody was found guilty, they would serve their prison sentence in Scotland. President Clinton and Tony Blair said that. The only way for him to be sent home would be for his miserable little carcase to go back to Libya in a pine box. The man is an unrepentant murderer."
'Megrahi's supporters also acknowledge the strength of feeling in America and the impact that could have on the Scottish ministers' decision. As Black said: "I suspect that Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill's civil servants are advising them that they should grant him the repatriation. There is nothing they would like better than this to go away quietly. But they are politicians and they have to weigh up the reaction."
'Mischievously, he added: "Given that we want lots and lots of Americans to come to Scotland for the Homecoming and this would have the American media up in arms – could that have adverse consequences?" That, it has to be said, may turn out to be the least of Alex Salmond's worries.'
The SoS leader is headed "Lockerbie bomber must stay" and reads in part:
'The case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, poses a serious dilemma for Alex Salmond. But the First Minister must stand firm. Megrahi is a convicted mass murderer and must not be released unless he is cleared on appeal.
'It is difficult not to feel some empathy for the Libyan, who is seriously ill and dying of cancer. Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, is just one of those who would not begrudge him the right to die in his homeland.
'There are, too, geopolitical consequences to consider. (...)
'Yet justice should be blind to all those extraneous issues, and it is the reputation of Scottish justice that should be at the forefront of Salmond's mind as he ponders his decision on whether Megrahi should stay or go. Any decision to free the prisoner at this stage would be seen in some quarters as an attempt to avoid evidence being presented in court that could embarrass the Scottish, UK and US authorities.
'Were Megrahi to be released before the appeal process had run its course, then a question mark would forever hang over Scottish justice. That is too high a price to pay to assuage our discomfort at a dying man's desire to die in the country of his birth.'
Saturday 9 May 2009
Megrahi transfer row puts Salmond under pressure
[What follows are excerpts from a report in the Daily Express. The full text can be read here.]
Alex Salmond yesterday came under mounting pressure not to send the Lockerbie bomber home to die as he insisted politics would play no part in any transfer.
The First Minister said the request to allow terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya would be considered on “judicial grounds alone”.
His comments came as American relatives of those who died in the 1988 atrocity revealed they had made a direct plea to Scottish ministers, who have the final say on whether the deal is done, to block Tripoli’s request.
It is also thought the United States government, which has long maintained Megrahi should complete his sentence in Scotland, is preparing to make diplomatic representations about the case. (...)
His second appeal against the conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
Mr Salmond said it would have been “greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland” were allowed to take their course.
But he insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer – which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – would be based solely on judicial grounds. (...)
Ministers have up to 90 days to reach a decision on the case under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck between then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi two years ago. American Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora was among those killed, last night said she had already e-mailed the Nationalist administration pleading for the request to be refused.
Ms Cohen said: “It would be a horrible slap in the face to the Scottish justice system if this man, who is a convicted mass murderer lest we forget, is allowed home. There are many conspiracy theories but not a single shred of evidence has come out saying anything other than the truth of Libyan involvement. He would be feted as a hero back in Libya.”
A spokesman for the US Embassy said his government’s long-held position was that “Megrahi should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison”. Asked if the US State Department would be making any representation he said: “We can’t discuss diplomatic exchanges.”
Until now, Megrahi, who is serving a minimum of 27 years in HMP Gateside, Greenock, has insisted he wants to clear his name.
His appeal continued yesterday. Five judges in Edinburgh have spent eight days listening to criticisms of the Camp Zeist trial in the Netherlands which found him guilty.
His QC, Maggie Scott, yesterday made no mention of the transfer request. But she told the court Megrahi had given up watching proceedings over a live CCTV link with his prison cell.
She said: “He is in considerable discomfort. He does, however, want matters to proceed.
“It is appropriate I point that out to the court.”
Alex Salmond yesterday came under mounting pressure not to send the Lockerbie bomber home to die as he insisted politics would play no part in any transfer.
The First Minister said the request to allow terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi to serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya would be considered on “judicial grounds alone”.
His comments came as American relatives of those who died in the 1988 atrocity revealed they had made a direct plea to Scottish ministers, who have the final say on whether the deal is done, to block Tripoli’s request.
It is also thought the United States government, which has long maintained Megrahi should complete his sentence in Scotland, is preparing to make diplomatic representations about the case. (...)
His second appeal against the conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
Mr Salmond said it would have been “greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland” were allowed to take their course.
But he insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer – which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – would be based solely on judicial grounds. (...)
Ministers have up to 90 days to reach a decision on the case under the terms of a controversial prisoner transfer agreement struck between then Prime Minister Tony Blair and Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi two years ago. American Susan Cohen, whose 20-year-old daughter Theodora was among those killed, last night said she had already e-mailed the Nationalist administration pleading for the request to be refused.
Ms Cohen said: “It would be a horrible slap in the face to the Scottish justice system if this man, who is a convicted mass murderer lest we forget, is allowed home. There are many conspiracy theories but not a single shred of evidence has come out saying anything other than the truth of Libyan involvement. He would be feted as a hero back in Libya.”
A spokesman for the US Embassy said his government’s long-held position was that “Megrahi should serve his sentence in a Scottish prison”. Asked if the US State Department would be making any representation he said: “We can’t discuss diplomatic exchanges.”
Until now, Megrahi, who is serving a minimum of 27 years in HMP Gateside, Greenock, has insisted he wants to clear his name.
His appeal continued yesterday. Five judges in Edinburgh have spent eight days listening to criticisms of the Camp Zeist trial in the Netherlands which found him guilty.
His QC, Maggie Scott, yesterday made no mention of the transfer request. But she told the court Megrahi had given up watching proceedings over a live CCTV link with his prison cell.
She said: “He is in considerable discomfort. He does, however, want matters to proceed.
“It is appropriate I point that out to the court.”
Megrahi desperate to see his family, says MSP
[The Herald reports Christine Grahame MSP's visit to Abdelbaset Megrahi under the above headline. The full report can be read here. The Scotsman's similar report can be read here. The following are excerpts from The Herald's account:]
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is in deteriorating health and "absolutely desperate" to see his family, an MSP said yesterday.
But Christine Grahame refused to say whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi intends to abandon his appeal against conviction, following her meeting with him at Greenock Prison.
Libyan authorities have applied for Megrahi to be moved to Libya under a prisoner transfer treaty between that country and the UK.
But no decision on this can be made by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill if there are outstanding legal proceedings. (...)
Emerging from the prison, Ms Grahame said: "I found it quite upsetting. The man is obviously very ill and he is desperate to see his family - absolutely desperate to see his family - so, whatever it takes, that's the priority."
She went on: "He did tell me things I can't discuss with you. But I am absolutely more convinced than ever that there has been a miscarriage of justice."
Asked if Megrahi planned to press on with his appeal, she said: "I can't say that - that is for him to say through his lawyers." (...)
Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year and later failed to be freed on bail pending his appeal, which finally got under way last Tuesday in Edinburgh. Legal experts have warned that although the Libyan government has made the application for the transfer agreement, it cannot go ahead without the agreement of the prisoner.
The appeal against the length of sentence imposed on Megrahi would also have to be dropped if the transfer agreement is to go ahead.
Ms Grahame said: "His health is deteriorating, he was pretty upset and he is a man who wants to see his family."
With his health worsening, al Megrahi believed he had only "a short time to go", Ms Grahame said. "It was all about his family - we did talk about other matters, but it kept coming back to the importance of family."
Megrahi did not tell her how long he expected to live, nor did he offer an opinion on the move by Libyan authorities, said Ms Grahame. But she also said he wanted to clear his name.
"That is essential to him as well," she said. "Other matters I can't discuss with you because it would prejudice anything else."
Ms Grahame has previously said that if his appeal was abandoned there should be a public inquiry, and yesterday she repeated that view.
She said Megrahi knew a lot about the Lockerbie case.
"This man has lived this case for the last decade, he knows more about it probably than any other person on the planet. He is well-informed but his priority is his family.
"The man is an able man but he is a man who is terminally ill and missing his family as we all would. He wants to die at home with his family."
The Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is in deteriorating health and "absolutely desperate" to see his family, an MSP said yesterday.
But Christine Grahame refused to say whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi intends to abandon his appeal against conviction, following her meeting with him at Greenock Prison.
Libyan authorities have applied for Megrahi to be moved to Libya under a prisoner transfer treaty between that country and the UK.
But no decision on this can be made by Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill if there are outstanding legal proceedings. (...)
Emerging from the prison, Ms Grahame said: "I found it quite upsetting. The man is obviously very ill and he is desperate to see his family - absolutely desperate to see his family - so, whatever it takes, that's the priority."
She went on: "He did tell me things I can't discuss with you. But I am absolutely more convinced than ever that there has been a miscarriage of justice."
Asked if Megrahi planned to press on with his appeal, she said: "I can't say that - that is for him to say through his lawyers." (...)
Megrahi was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year and later failed to be freed on bail pending his appeal, which finally got under way last Tuesday in Edinburgh. Legal experts have warned that although the Libyan government has made the application for the transfer agreement, it cannot go ahead without the agreement of the prisoner.
The appeal against the length of sentence imposed on Megrahi would also have to be dropped if the transfer agreement is to go ahead.
Ms Grahame said: "His health is deteriorating, he was pretty upset and he is a man who wants to see his family."
With his health worsening, al Megrahi believed he had only "a short time to go", Ms Grahame said. "It was all about his family - we did talk about other matters, but it kept coming back to the importance of family."
Megrahi did not tell her how long he expected to live, nor did he offer an opinion on the move by Libyan authorities, said Ms Grahame. But she also said he wanted to clear his name.
"That is essential to him as well," she said. "Other matters I can't discuss with you because it would prejudice anything else."
Ms Grahame has previously said that if his appeal was abandoned there should be a public inquiry, and yesterday she repeated that view.
She said Megrahi knew a lot about the Lockerbie case.
"This man has lived this case for the last decade, he knows more about it probably than any other person on the planet. He is well-informed but his priority is his family.
"The man is an able man but he is a man who is terminally ill and missing his family as we all would. He wants to die at home with his family."
Friday 8 May 2009
First Minister hints at delays in Lockerbie case
First Minister Alex Salmond has cast doubt on whether Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill will be able to rule on the prisoner transfer request from Libya of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Libyan authorities have applied for Megrahi to be moved to Libya under a treaty between that country and the UK. The process should be completed within 90 days.
However, Mr Salmond has said it may be a problem to fulfil the agreement in that time frame.
Mr Salmond said: "In the prisoner transfer agreement, it says this process would normally take 90 days but of course there are unknowns, including the judicial process in Scotland which is not completely under our control."
[From a report on the STV website. The full text can be read here.]
Libyan authorities have applied for Megrahi to be moved to Libya under a treaty between that country and the UK. The process should be completed within 90 days.
However, Mr Salmond has said it may be a problem to fulfil the agreement in that time frame.
Mr Salmond said: "In the prisoner transfer agreement, it says this process would normally take 90 days but of course there are unknowns, including the judicial process in Scotland which is not completely under our control."
[From a report on the STV website. The full text can be read here.]
Megrahi appeal goes on after experts reveal deal not agreed
[This is the headline over an article by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. The full text can be read here. The following are excerpts.]
The Lockerbie appeal continued yesterday despite the Libyan Government's request to transfer the man convicted of the bombing back to Tripoli.
Legal experts warned that the deal has not yet been agreed and that, although the Libyan Government has made the application, it cannot go ahead without the agreement of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Maggie Scott, QC, told the court that Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, would be undergoing tests today and next week and that he will not be able to watch but "he wants the matter to proceed".
In order for the transfer to take place, there can be no proceedings active, so Megrahi would have to drop the appeal.
The Crown Office appeal against the length of the 27-year sentence imposed on the Libyan would also have to be dropped. It, too, is currently still live.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "The application is a government-to-government application. The only indication of what Mr Megrahi's attitude towards it is from the mouths of other people. For the transfer to go through, it is Megrahi who would have to agree to drop the appeal."
Megrahi, 57, whose condition is said to have deteriorated considerably, could also re-apply for bail on the basis of his health.
Last year, when three appeal court judges turned down his request for interim liberation, they left it open for him to apply again.
"He is in considerable discomfort," Ms Scott told the court yesterday. "It is anticipated he will be undergoing tests tomorrow and in the course of next week, so it is not anticipated he will be able to witness proceedings over the next series of days. He does, however, want matters to proceed. It is appropriate I point that out to the court."
The Lockerbie appeal continued yesterday despite the Libyan Government's request to transfer the man convicted of the bombing back to Tripoli.
Legal experts warned that the deal has not yet been agreed and that, although the Libyan Government has made the application, it cannot go ahead without the agreement of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi.
Maggie Scott, QC, told the court that Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal prostate cancer, would be undergoing tests today and next week and that he will not be able to watch but "he wants the matter to proceed".
In order for the transfer to take place, there can be no proceedings active, so Megrahi would have to drop the appeal.
The Crown Office appeal against the length of the 27-year sentence imposed on the Libyan would also have to be dropped. It, too, is currently still live.
Professor Robert Black, one of the architects of the original trial at Camp Zeist, said: "The application is a government-to-government application. The only indication of what Mr Megrahi's attitude towards it is from the mouths of other people. For the transfer to go through, it is Megrahi who would have to agree to drop the appeal."
Megrahi, 57, whose condition is said to have deteriorated considerably, could also re-apply for bail on the basis of his health.
Last year, when three appeal court judges turned down his request for interim liberation, they left it open for him to apply again.
"He is in considerable discomfort," Ms Scott told the court yesterday. "It is anticipated he will be undergoing tests tomorrow and in the course of next week, so it is not anticipated he will be able to witness proceedings over the next series of days. He does, however, want matters to proceed. It is appropriate I point that out to the court."
MSP visits Megrahi in Greenock Prison
Thursday 7 May 2009
Salmond assures MSPs on Lockerbie transfer decision
First Minister Alex Salmond told Holyrood a decision on whether the Lockerbie bomber is to be transferred to Libya will be taken on "judicial grounds alone"
A decision on whether the Lockerbie bomber is to be transferred to Libya will be taken on "judicial grounds alone", the First Minister said. (...)
The second appeal against conviction by Megrahi began in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
Alex Salmond, speaking during First Minister's Questions on Thursday, said it would have been "greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland" were allowed to take their course.
But Mr Salmond insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer - which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - would be based solely on judicial grounds.
Mr Salmond stressed: "What I have said throughout this process is that everything we do as a government will uphold the integrity of the Scottish judicial system.
"Let me repeat that today and also say the decision made by the Justice Secretary will not be made on economic grounds or on political grounds; it will be made on judicial grounds and judicial grounds alone."
The issue had been raised by Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott, who said that he believed that "al Megrahi should serve his sentence in Scotland".
And the Lib Dem recalled a statement Mr Salmond had made to Holyrood in June 2007, when he said that Scottish law officers and others, including the Secretary General of the UN, had given assurances that any sentence that was imposed would be served in Scotland.
Mr Scott then asked Mr Salmond: "Does he stand by that statement he made as First Minister?" (...)
Labour MSP Elaine Murray, member for Dumfries, asked what consideration had been given to the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya.
Ms Murray said comments had already been made by the First Minister that anyone connected to the bombing should be excluded from prisoner transfer.
"Do these statements indicate that Scottish ministers have actually predetermined their response to the Libyan Government, and if so does this enable the Libyans to seek judicial review if the request is turned down?" she asked.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision has been made and added: "I think we were absolutely right - demonstrably right - to warn of the possible consequences of the sequence of events set in place in June 2007, just as we are absolutely duty bound to consider a prisoner transfer agreement on its merits.
"Given the relevant legislation, there can be no prejudging of that agreement before such a PTA came into place."
[From the STV (Scottish Television) website. The full report can be read here.]
A decision on whether the Lockerbie bomber is to be transferred to Libya will be taken on "judicial grounds alone", the First Minister said. (...)
The second appeal against conviction by Megrahi began in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
Alex Salmond, speaking during First Minister's Questions on Thursday, said it would have been "greatly to be preferred if the judicial processes of Scotland" were allowed to take their course.
But Mr Salmond insisted that the decision on the prisoner transfer - which will be considered by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill - would be based solely on judicial grounds.
Mr Salmond stressed: "What I have said throughout this process is that everything we do as a government will uphold the integrity of the Scottish judicial system.
"Let me repeat that today and also say the decision made by the Justice Secretary will not be made on economic grounds or on political grounds; it will be made on judicial grounds and judicial grounds alone."
The issue had been raised by Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott, who said that he believed that "al Megrahi should serve his sentence in Scotland".
And the Lib Dem recalled a statement Mr Salmond had made to Holyrood in June 2007, when he said that Scottish law officers and others, including the Secretary General of the UN, had given assurances that any sentence that was imposed would be served in Scotland.
Mr Scott then asked Mr Salmond: "Does he stand by that statement he made as First Minister?" (...)
Labour MSP Elaine Murray, member for Dumfries, asked what consideration had been given to the possible transfer of Megrahi to Libya.
Ms Murray said comments had already been made by the First Minister that anyone connected to the bombing should be excluded from prisoner transfer.
"Do these statements indicate that Scottish ministers have actually predetermined their response to the Libyan Government, and if so does this enable the Libyans to seek judicial review if the request is turned down?" she asked.
Mr Salmond insisted no decision has been made and added: "I think we were absolutely right - demonstrably right - to warn of the possible consequences of the sequence of events set in place in June 2007, just as we are absolutely duty bound to consider a prisoner transfer agreement on its merits.
"Given the relevant legislation, there can be no prejudging of that agreement before such a PTA came into place."
[From the STV (Scottish Television) website. The full report can be read here.]
The on-going appeal
The appeal hearing continued on Wednesday, notwithstanding the prisoner transfer application submitted by the Libyan Government.
Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her review of the evidence regarding ingestion of the fatal suitcase at Luqa Airport in Malta, and argued that the trial court's conclusion that the bomb started its fatal progress there was one that they were not entitled to reach on the evidence presented at the trial. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to entitle the trial court to reach the conclusion that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was a "Libyan plot".
Ms Scott indicated to the court that she was likely to conclude her submissions on Thursday morning. It will then be for Ronnie Clancy QC to respond on behalf of the Crown.
Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her review of the evidence regarding ingestion of the fatal suitcase at Luqa Airport in Malta, and argued that the trial court's conclusion that the bomb started its fatal progress there was one that they were not entitled to reach on the evidence presented at the trial. She also contended that the evidence was insufficient to entitle the trial court to reach the conclusion that the destruction of Pan Am 103 was a "Libyan plot".
Ms Scott indicated to the court that she was likely to conclude her submissions on Thursday morning. It will then be for Ronnie Clancy QC to respond on behalf of the Crown.
Reaction to the transfer application
Alex Salmond [the First Minister in the Scottish Government] was preparing his legal team last night for the most difficult decision of his time in office – whether to allow Britain's biggest mass-murderer to be released from jail and serve the remainder of his sentence in Libya. (…)
Megrahi, 57, a former Libyan secret agent, is terminally ill with prostate cancer and has only just begun his appeal, a process expected to last a year.
However, if he opts to drop the appeal then it will be up to the First Minister, justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and Scottish Government officials to decide whether to send him home. (…)
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said: "A Scottish court convicted Megrahi of a truly heinous crime – 270 people lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing.
"The justice secretary needs to respect the judgment of the Scottish courts. Megrahi should serve his time in a Scottish prison. This application should be refused." (…)
A senior Scottish Government source said there was no way ministers could agree to transfer Megrahi to Libya if legal proceedings were still ongoing. The appeal would have to be concluded – one way or the other – before any decision was taken, he said.
Megrahi has always protested his innocence, but if he drops his appeal and relies on the transfer agreement to get him home, he will leave as a convicted murderer. If he decides to pursue his appeal, he could die before the legal process concludes.
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: "When this issue (Megrahi's transfer] first arose as a possibility, we said we would normally expect someone convicted of such an atrocity over Scotland to serve their full sentence in Scotland. That view still prevails today."
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman. The article also contains the varying reactions of relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 to the possibility that Mr Megrahi may be repatriated. The Herald’s coverage of the story can be read here.]
Megrahi, 57, a former Libyan secret agent, is terminally ill with prostate cancer and has only just begun his appeal, a process expected to last a year.
However, if he opts to drop the appeal then it will be up to the First Minister, justice secretary Kenny MacAskill and Scottish Government officials to decide whether to send him home. (…)
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott said: "A Scottish court convicted Megrahi of a truly heinous crime – 270 people lost their lives in the Lockerbie bombing.
"The justice secretary needs to respect the judgment of the Scottish courts. Megrahi should serve his time in a Scottish prison. This application should be refused." (…)
A senior Scottish Government source said there was no way ministers could agree to transfer Megrahi to Libya if legal proceedings were still ongoing. The appeal would have to be concluded – one way or the other – before any decision was taken, he said.
Megrahi has always protested his innocence, but if he drops his appeal and relies on the transfer agreement to get him home, he will leave as a convicted murderer. If he decides to pursue his appeal, he could die before the legal process concludes.
Scottish Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken said: "When this issue (Megrahi's transfer] first arose as a possibility, we said we would normally expect someone convicted of such an atrocity over Scotland to serve their full sentence in Scotland. That view still prevails today."
[The above are excerpts from an article in today’s edition of The Scotsman. The article also contains the varying reactions of relatives of those killed on Pan Am 103 to the possibility that Mr Megrahi may be repatriated. The Herald’s coverage of the story can be read here.]
Wednesday 6 May 2009
What happens now?
[The most detailed report of today's events that I have been able to find comes from The Associated Press news agency. Excerpts appear below. The full report can be read here.]
The only person jailed over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing said he would drop his appeal against conviction — provided Britain allows him to serve the rest of sentence in Libya, a visiting Libyan official said Wednesday.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill with cancer, (...) has been fighting his conviction in a Scottish court, but a Libyan Foreign Ministry official said al-Megrahi would be willing to drop the case.
"He is sick. He has cancer. There is no cure for his case. He told me that he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," said Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi [more normally transliterated as Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, the Deputy Foreign Minister for European Affairs], who is leading a Libyan delegation to London. "Al-Megrahi said that he is ready to drop the appeal if he is guaranteed that he will be transferred to Libya." (...)
Al-Megrahi's lawyers have said British and U.S. authorities tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame. (...)
Al-Megrahi's appeal, which has been under review since April 28 at Edinburgh's High Court, points to an exhaustive 2007 legal review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board raised questions about evidence used to convict al-Megrahi.
Relatives of the victims expressed dismay Wednesday at the news that al-Megrahi might be sent to Libya.
Scottish lawmaker Christine Grahame said she believed al-Megrahi would succeed in clearing his name if he can complete the appeal process, but she said it was "understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health."
She called for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, even if al-Megrahi were no longer in the country.
Robert Monetti, from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose son Rick died in the blast, said "the American families are incredibly opposed to letting al-Megrahi out of Scotland."
"As a group we are generally convinced that he is guilty and ought to serve his sentence" in Britain, Monetti said.
El-Ubaidi, the Libyan official, said he made a request to Scottish officials Tuesday to drop the appeal. Scotland's government confirmed receiving the request, and said a decision could take three months or longer. Scotland had said it would not repatriate him while his appeal was being heard.
Meanwhile, appeals proceedings were held Wednesday at the court in Edinburgh. Al-Megrahi's lawyer Tony Kelly declined comment, prosecution spokesman Kevin Bell said the appeal was expected to continue.
The only person jailed over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing said he would drop his appeal against conviction — provided Britain allows him to serve the rest of sentence in Libya, a visiting Libyan official said Wednesday.
Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who is terminally ill with cancer, (...) has been fighting his conviction in a Scottish court, but a Libyan Foreign Ministry official said al-Megrahi would be willing to drop the case.
"He is sick. He has cancer. There is no cure for his case. He told me that he wants to die among his family and friends in his country," said Abdel Atti el-Ubaidi [more normally transliterated as Abdel Ati al-Obeidi, the Deputy Foreign Minister for European Affairs], who is leading a Libyan delegation to London. "Al-Megrahi said that he is ready to drop the appeal if he is guaranteed that he will be transferred to Libya." (...)
Al-Megrahi's lawyers have said British and U.S. authorities tampered with evidence, disregarded witness statements and steered investigators toward the conclusion that Libya, not Iran, was to blame. (...)
Al-Megrahi's appeal, which has been under review since April 28 at Edinburgh's High Court, points to an exhaustive 2007 legal review by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Board raised questions about evidence used to convict al-Megrahi.
Relatives of the victims expressed dismay Wednesday at the news that al-Megrahi might be sent to Libya.
Scottish lawmaker Christine Grahame said she believed al-Megrahi would succeed in clearing his name if he can complete the appeal process, but she said it was "understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health."
She called for a public inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing, even if al-Megrahi were no longer in the country.
Robert Monetti, from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, whose son Rick died in the blast, said "the American families are incredibly opposed to letting al-Megrahi out of Scotland."
"As a group we are generally convinced that he is guilty and ought to serve his sentence" in Britain, Monetti said.
El-Ubaidi, the Libyan official, said he made a request to Scottish officials Tuesday to drop the appeal. Scotland's government confirmed receiving the request, and said a decision could take three months or longer. Scotland had said it would not repatriate him while his appeal was being heard.
Meanwhile, appeals proceedings were held Wednesday at the court in Edinburgh. Al-Megrahi's lawyer Tony Kelly declined comment, prosecution spokesman Kevin Bell said the appeal was expected to continue.
A MSP's response to the transfer application
Christine Grahame MSP (SNP) who is due to meet Mr Megrahi at Greenock Prison on Friday said:
“I am not surprised Mr Megrahi has made an application to be transferred back to Libya. Until that transfer takes place his appeal can still proceed, although I suspect his transfer application will not take a full 90 days to be considered. Even if it were it is likely his appeal will not now be heard given a year was set aside to consider it.
“Ideally it would have been better if the protocol which the British Government signed up to would have allowed for the appeal to continue whilst Mr Megrahi was transferred back to Libya. I firmly believe on the evidence I have seen that Mr Megrahi would win his appeal and clear his name. Unfortunately, because he is terminally ill, time is not on his side and it is understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health.
“If the prisoner transfer does proceed, as I expect it will, and Mr Megrahi drops his appeal then I think the case for a full public inquiry into this whole episode will be necessary. Such an inquiry should not only examine how the official investigation was carried out, but also re-examine the evidence both contemporary and newly presented that points to another source and motive for this appalling atrocity.
“It is imperative therefore that all evidence gathered and maintained by the relevant authorities, including the Crown Office and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and others is secured and not destroyed in the event Mr Megrahi does drop his appeal. That evidence will be vital should there be a public inquiry.”
[Press release from Christine Grahame's office.]
“I am not surprised Mr Megrahi has made an application to be transferred back to Libya. Until that transfer takes place his appeal can still proceed, although I suspect his transfer application will not take a full 90 days to be considered. Even if it were it is likely his appeal will not now be heard given a year was set aside to consider it.
“Ideally it would have been better if the protocol which the British Government signed up to would have allowed for the appeal to continue whilst Mr Megrahi was transferred back to Libya. I firmly believe on the evidence I have seen that Mr Megrahi would win his appeal and clear his name. Unfortunately, because he is terminally ill, time is not on his side and it is understandable, on a personal level, why he would want to return to his homeland given his failing health.
“If the prisoner transfer does proceed, as I expect it will, and Mr Megrahi drops his appeal then I think the case for a full public inquiry into this whole episode will be necessary. Such an inquiry should not only examine how the official investigation was carried out, but also re-examine the evidence both contemporary and newly presented that points to another source and motive for this appalling atrocity.
“It is imperative therefore that all evidence gathered and maintained by the relevant authorities, including the Crown Office and Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission and others is secured and not destroyed in the event Mr Megrahi does drop his appeal. That evidence will be vital should there be a public inquiry.”
[Press release from Christine Grahame's office.]
Libya applies for transfer of Lockerbie bomb prisoner
The Libyan authorities have applied for the transfer of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, the Scottish government said today.
The move, which could see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi sent home to Libya to serve out his sentence, follows last week's ratification of a prisoner transfer agreement between the British and Libyan governments.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The application will be considered by officials who will provide information and advice to Scottish ministers for decision on this matter.
"Under the terms of the agreement this process may take 90 days although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application, or for another reason."
[From The Herald's website. The BBC News website's report can be read here. The report on The Scotsman's website can be accessed here. The following are excerpts:
'[Megrahi's] second appeal against conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on board the Pan Am flight 103, welcomed the development.
'He said: "I am not opposed to this simply because I don't believe the man is guilty as charged and I don't think Megrahi should be in prison."
'He said it was only "right" Megrahi, who is dying from cancer, should be allowed home.
'But Dr Swire added: "He has to renounce his appeal before he can go home. Just because the authorities have applied doesn't mean it is going to happen immediately."
'The application to the Scottish Government was made late yesterday, officials said.
'Under terms of Britain's agreement with Libya, a decision on transferring a prisoner cannot be made if there are any outstanding legal proceedings.
'But the fact that legal proceedings are still outstanding does not prevent an application being lodged.
'The prisoner transfer deal was ratified last Wednesday – the day after Megrahi's second appeal began in Edinburgh.
'For a prisoner like Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, the requirement that there can be no legal proceedings outstanding poses an agonising choice.
'He can either drop his appeal – and with it his bid to clear his name – and seek a return to Libya. Or he can persist with an appeal – and possibly die before it is completed.
'Labour's Scottish justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It is absolutely right that it is Scottish ministers that will be responsible for any decision to transfer Mr Megrahi.
'"The Scottish Justice Minister has responsibility for Scottish prisoners and so it follows that Kenny MacAskill should decide on the issue."
'Barrie Berkley, who lost his son Alistair, said he hoped the appeal would continue.
'Mr Berkley, of Hexham, Northumberland, said: "I would rather the appeal be completed first and I hope the courts would facilitate it going through without any further delay.
'"We want the appeal to go through because it's the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died.
"We really want to know whether the Libyans were behind this and Megrahi was behind it.
'"Or of course if he was found not guilty that would mean the inquiry would have to reopen and the various agencies of the US and UK would need to find who was behind it if it wasn't Megrahi.
'"Our main motive is to find out whether Megrahi did do it or not."
'He added: "If he is found guilty then the Government has to decide where he serves the remainder of his term. It shouldn't be up to him or the Libyan authorities."'
The relevant legal provisions governing prisoner transfer are set out here. A prisoner may be transferred only if the judgment against him is final and no other criminal proceedings are pending in the transferring state. This means that Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal would have to be abandoned before transfer takes place. But it would seem on the face of it that there is no reason why the appeal should not continue while the Scottish Government is considering the application. Transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the prisoner concerned since it is he alone who can instruct the appeal to be abandoned to allow transfer to take place.]
The move, which could see Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi sent home to Libya to serve out his sentence, follows last week's ratification of a prisoner transfer agreement between the British and Libyan governments.
A Scottish government spokesman said: "The application will be considered by officials who will provide information and advice to Scottish ministers for decision on this matter.
"Under the terms of the agreement this process may take 90 days although it could be longer if further information is required in relation to the application, or for another reason."
[From The Herald's website. The BBC News website's report can be read here. The report on The Scotsman's website can be accessed here. The following are excerpts:
'[Megrahi's] second appeal against conviction began at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh last week, but this must be dropped if his transfer to a Libyan jail is to take place.
'Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was on board the Pan Am flight 103, welcomed the development.
'He said: "I am not opposed to this simply because I don't believe the man is guilty as charged and I don't think Megrahi should be in prison."
'He said it was only "right" Megrahi, who is dying from cancer, should be allowed home.
'But Dr Swire added: "He has to renounce his appeal before he can go home. Just because the authorities have applied doesn't mean it is going to happen immediately."
'The application to the Scottish Government was made late yesterday, officials said.
'Under terms of Britain's agreement with Libya, a decision on transferring a prisoner cannot be made if there are any outstanding legal proceedings.
'But the fact that legal proceedings are still outstanding does not prevent an application being lodged.
'The prisoner transfer deal was ratified last Wednesday – the day after Megrahi's second appeal began in Edinburgh.
'For a prisoner like Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, the requirement that there can be no legal proceedings outstanding poses an agonising choice.
'He can either drop his appeal – and with it his bid to clear his name – and seek a return to Libya. Or he can persist with an appeal – and possibly die before it is completed.
'Labour's Scottish justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "It is absolutely right that it is Scottish ministers that will be responsible for any decision to transfer Mr Megrahi.
'"The Scottish Justice Minister has responsibility for Scottish prisoners and so it follows that Kenny MacAskill should decide on the issue."
'Barrie Berkley, who lost his son Alistair, said he hoped the appeal would continue.
'Mr Berkley, of Hexham, Northumberland, said: "I would rather the appeal be completed first and I hope the courts would facilitate it going through without any further delay.
'"We want the appeal to go through because it's the main means of us getting further information about how our family members died or why they died.
"We really want to know whether the Libyans were behind this and Megrahi was behind it.
'"Or of course if he was found not guilty that would mean the inquiry would have to reopen and the various agencies of the US and UK would need to find who was behind it if it wasn't Megrahi.
'"Our main motive is to find out whether Megrahi did do it or not."
'He added: "If he is found guilty then the Government has to decide where he serves the remainder of his term. It shouldn't be up to him or the Libyan authorities."'
The relevant legal provisions governing prisoner transfer are set out here. A prisoner may be transferred only if the judgment against him is final and no other criminal proceedings are pending in the transferring state. This means that Abdelbaset Megrahi's current appeal would have to be abandoned before transfer takes place. But it would seem on the face of it that there is no reason why the appeal should not continue while the Scottish Government is considering the application. Transfer cannot be effected without the consent of the prisoner concerned since it is he alone who can instruct the appeal to be abandoned to allow transfer to take place.]
Appeal update
As far as I can discover, there is no online press coverage of the first day of the second week of the appeal on Tuesday.
However, a source who was present in court informs me that Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her detailed examination of the evidence given by Tony Gauci at trial about the date of purchase of the clothing that accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase. In the course of these submissions reference was made to transcripts of the evidence provided at trial and in particular the evidence in relation to the football games shown on Maltese television on 23rd November 1988 and 7th December 1988, the weather on these dates and the evidence led at trial in relation to the Christmas lights.
Ms Scott continued with an examination of case law where the Crown sought to corroborate the identification of an accused with circumstantial evidence. She then addressed the Court on whether the trial court was entitled to draw the inference that the appellant knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought.
In the course of the afternoon Ms Scott began an examination of the evidence from which the trial court made the inference that the primary suitcase was ingested at Luqa airport in Malta. In order to examine this evidence she will ask the court to look at the evidence led at trial relating to Heathrow airport, Frankfurt airport and Luqa airport.
However, a source who was present in court informs me that Maggie Scott QC for Megrahi continued her detailed examination of the evidence given by Tony Gauci at trial about the date of purchase of the clothing that accompanied the bomb in the brown Samsonite suitcase. In the course of these submissions reference was made to transcripts of the evidence provided at trial and in particular the evidence in relation to the football games shown on Maltese television on 23rd November 1988 and 7th December 1988, the weather on these dates and the evidence led at trial in relation to the Christmas lights.
Ms Scott continued with an examination of case law where the Crown sought to corroborate the identification of an accused with circumstantial evidence. She then addressed the Court on whether the trial court was entitled to draw the inference that the appellant knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought.
In the course of the afternoon Ms Scott began an examination of the evidence from which the trial court made the inference that the primary suitcase was ingested at Luqa airport in Malta. In order to examine this evidence she will ask the court to look at the evidence led at trial relating to Heathrow airport, Frankfurt airport and Luqa airport.
Tuesday 5 May 2009
Bomber visit 'blocked' claims MSP
[The following is a press release issued today by SNP Member of the Scottish Parliament, Christine Grahame. An article based on it appears on the BBC News website and can be read here.]
An MSP who is working with relatives of victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing has been refused a visit to the man convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Christine Grahame MSP had been offered a private meeting with the terminally ill Mr Megrahi who is currently serving a 27 year sentence at Greenock Prison. Mr Megrahi is currently appealing his conviction and had agreed to meet Ms Grahame, but officials at the Scottish Prison Service blocked the move at the last moment, refusing to give an explanation. Ms Grahame said:
“I believe, as many campaigners and relatives of Lockerbie victims believe, that the conviction against Mr Megrahi is unsafe and, like the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, I think there is evidence that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. If that is the case it is not only an injustice for Mr Megrahi but also for the 270 victims of Pan Am 103.
“I was offered a private visit last week to speak to Mr Megrahi directly and I intended to meet with him on Sunday morning. On Saturday evening however the prison Governor contacted my office to advise that the meeting would not be able to proceed due to unspecified reasons. Despite several attempts to seek clarification from the Scottish Prison Service no satisfactory explanation has been offered.”
Ms Grahame, a former lawyer, has been working closely with the Justice for Megrahi campaign which includes Professor Robert Black QC, the well respected legal expert and Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing. She added:
“From the evidence I have seen I think there is an indication that very senior officials and British Ministers do not want the truth about this case to enter the public arena.
“I believe that is why the British Government has rushed through the Prisoner Transfer Protocol with Libya, in the hope Mr Megrahi will drop his appeal, as he must do under the terms of the protocol arrangement to be eligible to be transferred back to his homeland. That would ensure that the details about the unsafe nature of this conviction and the manner in which the investigation was carried out by both Scottish and US investigators will be covered up.”
Mr Megrahi is understood to be disappointed that the visit is being blocked, despite his entitlement to such visits. Ms Grahame intends to pursue the matter with the relevant officials.
An MSP who is working with relatives of victims of the Lockerbie Pan Am bombing has been refused a visit to the man convicted of the atrocity, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Christine Grahame MSP had been offered a private meeting with the terminally ill Mr Megrahi who is currently serving a 27 year sentence at Greenock Prison. Mr Megrahi is currently appealing his conviction and had agreed to meet Ms Grahame, but officials at the Scottish Prison Service blocked the move at the last moment, refusing to give an explanation. Ms Grahame said:
“I believe, as many campaigners and relatives of Lockerbie victims believe, that the conviction against Mr Megrahi is unsafe and, like the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, I think there is evidence that a miscarriage of justice has taken place. If that is the case it is not only an injustice for Mr Megrahi but also for the 270 victims of Pan Am 103.
“I was offered a private visit last week to speak to Mr Megrahi directly and I intended to meet with him on Sunday morning. On Saturday evening however the prison Governor contacted my office to advise that the meeting would not be able to proceed due to unspecified reasons. Despite several attempts to seek clarification from the Scottish Prison Service no satisfactory explanation has been offered.”
Ms Grahame, a former lawyer, has been working closely with the Justice for Megrahi campaign which includes Professor Robert Black QC, the well respected legal expert and Dr Jim Swire whose daughter Flora was killed in the bombing. She added:
“From the evidence I have seen I think there is an indication that very senior officials and British Ministers do not want the truth about this case to enter the public arena.
“I believe that is why the British Government has rushed through the Prisoner Transfer Protocol with Libya, in the hope Mr Megrahi will drop his appeal, as he must do under the terms of the protocol arrangement to be eligible to be transferred back to his homeland. That would ensure that the details about the unsafe nature of this conviction and the manner in which the investigation was carried out by both Scottish and US investigators will be covered up.”
Mr Megrahi is understood to be disappointed that the visit is being blocked, despite his entitlement to such visits. Ms Grahame intends to pursue the matter with the relevant officials.
Monday 4 May 2009
More from Malta
In the dock: Lockerbie witness Gauci
The defence of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi wants to attack the central plank of his prosecution – Malta shopkeeper Tony Gauci. MATTHEW VELLA looks at the mounting evidence.
[This is the heading over an article in the Sunday edition of Malta Today. The full text can be read here.]
The defence of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al Megrahi wants to attack the central plank of his prosecution – Malta shopkeeper Tony Gauci. MATTHEW VELLA looks at the mounting evidence.
[This is the heading over an article in the Sunday edition of Malta Today. The full text can be read here.]
Sunday 3 May 2009
There is never enough evidence
We are not looking for anyone else. That is the traditional response of the police when faced with the acquittal of men they are convinced were guilty all along. They were at it again this week when three men accused of assisting the 7 July suicide bombers were found not guilty. Andy Hayman, former commissioner of Special Operations at Scotland Yard, wrote of "a sense of bitter disappointment" at the acquittal of the men. And this he said was probably "the last throw of the dice". The police had done a very thorough investigation but the evidence was "not convincing enough".
The implication is clear. The men were almost certainly guilty. The police just didn't have the evidence to prove it. At no point was Hayman prepared to admit that they might just have been innocent. As it happened, the acquittal of the three men coincided with the reopening of an appeal case in a terrorist attack far more serious even than that of 7 July – the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 270 people.
The Libyan convicted of the bombing, Mr Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, began an appeal in Scotland against his conviction in 2001. Megrahi did not have the benefit of a jury trial but was found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves that he had put a bomb in a suitcase in Malta which went unaccompanied to Frankfurt where it was loaded on to another plane to Heathrow before being transferred on to Pan Am Flight 103 to the US and exploding over Scotland.
Should Megrahi's appeal succeed, it will be interesting to see if the Scottish police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams in Saturday's edition of The Independent.]
The implication is clear. The men were almost certainly guilty. The police just didn't have the evidence to prove it. At no point was Hayman prepared to admit that they might just have been innocent. As it happened, the acquittal of the three men coincided with the reopening of an appeal case in a terrorist attack far more serious even than that of 7 July – the Lockerbie bombing of 1988 which resulted in the deaths of 270 people.
The Libyan convicted of the bombing, Mr Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, began an appeal in Scotland against his conviction in 2001. Megrahi did not have the benefit of a jury trial but was found guilty by three Scottish judges who persuaded themselves that he had put a bomb in a suitcase in Malta which went unaccompanied to Frankfurt where it was loaded on to another plane to Heathrow before being transferred on to Pan Am Flight 103 to the US and exploding over Scotland.
Should Megrahi's appeal succeed, it will be interesting to see if the Scottish police say that they are not looking for anyone else.
[From a column by Richard Ingrams in Saturday's edition of The Independent.]
Malta may be cleared of Lockerbie connection
"I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta" - victim's father
The Maltese connection to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie will be called into question with fresh evidence presented in the second appeal of the convicted bomber.
A representative of the British victims' families told The Sunday Times yesterday: "I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta."
The appeal, launched last Tuesday, challenged the testimony of key witness Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who had identified Abdel Basset al-Megrahi as having bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
The prosecution's line in the initial trial was that Mr al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, placed the bomb and clothes in a suitcase checked in at Luqa airport and transferred on to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.
Ever since Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, Malta has been implicated in the terrorist act that killed 270 people.
But Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer, Margaret Scott, tore into Mr Gauci's evidence during last Friday's appeal hearing, saying the witness had initially given descriptions of the man in his shop as being taller and more than 10 years older.
"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," she told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, according to The Scotsman.
Investigating officers had shown the shopkeeper several photos but he rejected them, because the people were too young. He had even rejected the page showing the photo of Mr al-Megrahi.
But the lawyer told the court last Friday that "unlike before", Mr Gauci was told to look at the photos again. "It was a clear message that there is something there to be found," Dr Scott said.
In fact, Mr Gauci never identified Mr al-Megrahi. He simply stated: "He resembles him a lot."
The trial judges had accepted this identification as a "highly important element" of the case.
Attempts by The Sunday Times to contact Mr Gauci proved futile. During a visit to his Sliema shop yesterday, a man who claimed to be his brother said he had not seen the key witness for a month and insisted he had no comment to make.
Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer will call into question four crucial pieces of evidence that secured his conviction. These are that the accused bought the clothing found with the bomb; that the purchase happened on December 7, 1988; that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought; and that the suitcase containing the bomb left from Malta. An element absent from the original trial provides a compelling alternative to the idea that the bomb left from Malta.
Just over 12 years after the bombing, the courts heard retired Heathrow security guard Ray Manly testify that a door leading to the baggage build-up area at Terminal 3 was forced open on the night of December 20, 1988.
The intruder, he had told court, could have easily introduced and tagged a suitcase as Pan Am baggage.
Dr Jim Swire, father of 24-year-old victim Flora, told The Sunday Times yesterday he believed the Malta connection was false: "Security at Luqa conformed to the requirement to check the amount of bags getting on to an aircraft and making sure it agreed with the number that had gone off at the other end."
In the case of the Air Malta flight, which allegedly carried the suitcase with the explosive, "the records show unequivocally that the bags loaded belonged to the passengers and that there were no other bags... and that in Frankfurt the same amount of bags were accounted for."
Dr Swire believed the possibility that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow was suppressed: "Despite this security breach, the airport was not shut down until the breach was explained. Had this been done, I believe my daughter would still be alive." He hoped this second trial would prove to be the watershed he and other sceptical relatives had been waiting for.
However, the appeal may not be concluded if Mr al-Megrahi chooses to return home through a prisoner exchange programme between the UK and Libya, which was ratified by Britain last week.
Mr Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from advanced prostate cancer. A decision to drop the appeal would leave him condemned as guilty.
A Scottish journalist following the case told The Sunday Times he suspected that Mr al-Megrahi could be biding his time until this first round of the appeal was over.
"If the judges return with an early verdict in favour of al-Megrahi, he goes back home a free man. If not, he'll likely take the exchange."
Dr Swire was sympathetic to Mr al-Megrahi's position. Although it could mean he would never know the truth about his daughter's death, he said: "Put yourself in his shoes, what else would you do?"
"I would go, and could not blame him if he does. He has told me before that he would rather clear his name before he goes home," Dr Swire added.
But if the appeal did not go through, Dr Swire would be "clamouring" for a full inquiry, which would also be in Malta's interest.
"I think Malta has nothing but substance to gain from this."
[This is an article by Mark Micallef and Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. As far as I can discover, none of the Scottish or UK Sundays covers the first week of the appeal hearing.]
The Maltese connection to the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie will be called into question with fresh evidence presented in the second appeal of the convicted bomber.
A representative of the British victims' families told The Sunday Times yesterday: "I firmly believe the bomb did not leave from Malta."
The appeal, launched last Tuesday, challenged the testimony of key witness Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper who had identified Abdel Basset al-Megrahi as having bought clothes from his shop that were later found wrapped around the bomb.
The prosecution's line in the initial trial was that Mr al-Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, placed the bomb and clothes in a suitcase checked in at Luqa airport and transferred on to the ill-fated Pan Am flight in Frankfurt.
Ever since Mr al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, Malta has been implicated in the terrorist act that killed 270 people.
But Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer, Margaret Scott, tore into Mr Gauci's evidence during last Friday's appeal hearing, saying the witness had initially given descriptions of the man in his shop as being taller and more than 10 years older.
"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," she told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh, according to The Scotsman.
Investigating officers had shown the shopkeeper several photos but he rejected them, because the people were too young. He had even rejected the page showing the photo of Mr al-Megrahi.
But the lawyer told the court last Friday that "unlike before", Mr Gauci was told to look at the photos again. "It was a clear message that there is something there to be found," Dr Scott said.
In fact, Mr Gauci never identified Mr al-Megrahi. He simply stated: "He resembles him a lot."
The trial judges had accepted this identification as a "highly important element" of the case.
Attempts by The Sunday Times to contact Mr Gauci proved futile. During a visit to his Sliema shop yesterday, a man who claimed to be his brother said he had not seen the key witness for a month and insisted he had no comment to make.
Mr al-Megrahi's lawyer will call into question four crucial pieces of evidence that secured his conviction. These are that the accused bought the clothing found with the bomb; that the purchase happened on December 7, 1988; that the buyer knew the purpose for which the clothing was bought; and that the suitcase containing the bomb left from Malta. An element absent from the original trial provides a compelling alternative to the idea that the bomb left from Malta.
Just over 12 years after the bombing, the courts heard retired Heathrow security guard Ray Manly testify that a door leading to the baggage build-up area at Terminal 3 was forced open on the night of December 20, 1988.
The intruder, he had told court, could have easily introduced and tagged a suitcase as Pan Am baggage.
Dr Jim Swire, father of 24-year-old victim Flora, told The Sunday Times yesterday he believed the Malta connection was false: "Security at Luqa conformed to the requirement to check the amount of bags getting on to an aircraft and making sure it agreed with the number that had gone off at the other end."
In the case of the Air Malta flight, which allegedly carried the suitcase with the explosive, "the records show unequivocally that the bags loaded belonged to the passengers and that there were no other bags... and that in Frankfurt the same amount of bags were accounted for."
Dr Swire believed the possibility that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow was suppressed: "Despite this security breach, the airport was not shut down until the breach was explained. Had this been done, I believe my daughter would still be alive." He hoped this second trial would prove to be the watershed he and other sceptical relatives had been waiting for.
However, the appeal may not be concluded if Mr al-Megrahi chooses to return home through a prisoner exchange programme between the UK and Libya, which was ratified by Britain last week.
Mr Al-Megrahi, 57, is suffering from advanced prostate cancer. A decision to drop the appeal would leave him condemned as guilty.
A Scottish journalist following the case told The Sunday Times he suspected that Mr al-Megrahi could be biding his time until this first round of the appeal was over.
"If the judges return with an early verdict in favour of al-Megrahi, he goes back home a free man. If not, he'll likely take the exchange."
Dr Swire was sympathetic to Mr al-Megrahi's position. Although it could mean he would never know the truth about his daughter's death, he said: "Put yourself in his shoes, what else would you do?"
"I would go, and could not blame him if he does. He has told me before that he would rather clear his name before he goes home," Dr Swire added.
But if the appeal did not go through, Dr Swire would be "clamouring" for a full inquiry, which would also be in Malta's interest.
"I think Malta has nothing but substance to gain from this."
[This is an article by Mark Micallef and Caroline Muscat in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times. As far as I can discover, none of the Scottish or UK Sundays covers the first week of the appeal hearing.]
Saturday 2 May 2009
Media silence broken
The two Scottish "serious" daily newspapers have now broken the media silence on the Lockerbie appeal.
The Herald's report on day four of the proceedings can be read here. It reads in part:
'Appeal judges were told today there "no positive identification" of a Libyan intelligence officer by a crucial witness at the Lockerbie bombing trial.
'A senior counsel said there were "striking discrepancies" in the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper over the height and age of a man who had bought clothing from him with that of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
'Margaret Scott QC told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that the testimony of shopkeeper Tony Gauci was at best "a looks like resemblance" between the man who made the purchases and Megrahi.
'She said: "When one looks at the identification evidence it is incapable of sustaining a finding that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing."
'The finding was one of four critical inferences made by judges at Megrahi's original at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in convicting him of murder in 2001. (...)
'His counsel, Miss Scott, said that in 1989 Mr Gauci had described the man who bought the clothes as aged about 50 and six feet in height. Megrahi was aged 36 at the time of the purchase and stood five feet eight inches tall.
'"The initial description given by the witness at the outset is substantially different to the appellant both in terms of height and age," she said.
'She said Mr Gauci had been shown several photospreads by police on different occasions as they sought his help.
'Miss Scott said that at the first which featured a photo of Megrahi, supplied by the FBI, there were aspects of procedure clearly different to the others.
'She said initially Mr Gauci said the men featured were younger than the purchaser.
'The defence counsel said: "In a sense he rejected the photos on the basis they were too young, but quite unlike before the witness was told to look at the photos again carefully and to try to allow for any age difference."
'Miss Scott argued it was "a clear message that the witness needs to try again and a message that there is something there to be found".
'She said it was only following this that Mr Gauci picked out the photo of Megrahi as being similar to the man who bought the clothing.
'"In my submission, that is highly irregular and liable to introduce the risk of significant error in what he subsequently does," she said.
'Miss Scott said that an identity parade held at Camp Zeist in 1999 with Mr Gauci in attendance was also flawed.
'She said no other Libyans were part of the line-up and four of the participants were in their 30s and one was five feet three inches tall. "Four people were quite unreasonably young and one was unreasonably short," she told the court.
'Mr Gauci picked out Megrahi at the parade as a man "who look a little bit like exactly" the clothes buyer.
'The defence counsel said: "It is quite clear there has been no positive identification of the appellant as the purchaser. At best the witness makes a form of resemblance identification."'
The Scotsman's report can be read here. It is similar to, but shorter than, The Herald's. The following is an excerpt:
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been identified as resembling a man who bought clothing which was packed into a suitcase with the bomb. But the witness who picked him out, a Maltese shopkeeper, had earlier given descriptions of the purchaser as being taller and ten years older.
'"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," said Maggie Scott, QC, at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
'She complained that the judges who convicted Megrahi at his trial in 2001 had failed to explain in their verdict how they overcame the difficulty. "There is a discrepancy, and while it is acknowledged, there is no reasoning as to how it was resolved... it remains," she added. (...)
'At the trial, Mr Gauci was asked if he could see the man who bought the clothing and he pointed to Megrahi, and said: "He resembles him a lot."
'The trial judges said his identification should be treated as "a highly important element".'
The Herald's report on day four of the proceedings can be read here. It reads in part:
'Appeal judges were told today there "no positive identification" of a Libyan intelligence officer by a crucial witness at the Lockerbie bombing trial.
'A senior counsel said there were "striking discrepancies" in the evidence of a Maltese shopkeeper over the height and age of a man who had bought clothing from him with that of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi. (...)
'Margaret Scott QC told the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh that the testimony of shopkeeper Tony Gauci was at best "a looks like resemblance" between the man who made the purchases and Megrahi.
'She said: "When one looks at the identification evidence it is incapable of sustaining a finding that the appellant was the purchaser of the clothing."
'The finding was one of four critical inferences made by judges at Megrahi's original at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in convicting him of murder in 2001. (...)
'His counsel, Miss Scott, said that in 1989 Mr Gauci had described the man who bought the clothes as aged about 50 and six feet in height. Megrahi was aged 36 at the time of the purchase and stood five feet eight inches tall.
'"The initial description given by the witness at the outset is substantially different to the appellant both in terms of height and age," she said.
'She said Mr Gauci had been shown several photospreads by police on different occasions as they sought his help.
'Miss Scott said that at the first which featured a photo of Megrahi, supplied by the FBI, there were aspects of procedure clearly different to the others.
'She said initially Mr Gauci said the men featured were younger than the purchaser.
'The defence counsel said: "In a sense he rejected the photos on the basis they were too young, but quite unlike before the witness was told to look at the photos again carefully and to try to allow for any age difference."
'Miss Scott argued it was "a clear message that the witness needs to try again and a message that there is something there to be found".
'She said it was only following this that Mr Gauci picked out the photo of Megrahi as being similar to the man who bought the clothing.
'"In my submission, that is highly irregular and liable to introduce the risk of significant error in what he subsequently does," she said.
'Miss Scott said that an identity parade held at Camp Zeist in 1999 with Mr Gauci in attendance was also flawed.
'She said no other Libyans were part of the line-up and four of the participants were in their 30s and one was five feet three inches tall. "Four people were quite unreasonably young and one was unreasonably short," she told the court.
'Mr Gauci picked out Megrahi at the parade as a man "who look a little bit like exactly" the clothes buyer.
'The defence counsel said: "It is quite clear there has been no positive identification of the appellant as the purchaser. At best the witness makes a form of resemblance identification."'
The Scotsman's report can be read here. It is similar to, but shorter than, The Herald's. The following is an excerpt:
'Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi had been identified as resembling a man who bought clothing which was packed into a suitcase with the bomb. But the witness who picked him out, a Maltese shopkeeper, had earlier given descriptions of the purchaser as being taller and ten years older.
'"What we have here is a striking discrepancy," said Maggie Scott, QC, at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh.
'She complained that the judges who convicted Megrahi at his trial in 2001 had failed to explain in their verdict how they overcame the difficulty. "There is a discrepancy, and while it is acknowledged, there is no reasoning as to how it was resolved... it remains," she added. (...)
'At the trial, Mr Gauci was asked if he could see the man who bought the clothing and he pointed to Megrahi, and said: "He resembles him a lot."
'The trial judges said his identification should be treated as "a highly important element".'
Friday 1 May 2009
Another day of silence
I can find nothing at all in the online media about day three of the appeal. I suspect that this will be the pattern until the first day of the Crown's response, when there will once again be a one-day flurry of press interest. All very frustrating. It almost makes me wish that I had returned to Edinburgh from the fastnesses of the Roggeveld Karoo in order to be present in court. Almost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)