Tuesday, 4 July 2017

Lockerbie's Twenty Nine year lie.

On the 21st December 1988 a terrorist bomb destroyed flight Pan Am 103 during its journey from Heathrow Airport in the UK to New York.



Sections of the dismembered plane, 243 passengers and sixteen crew members fell across the Scottish town of Lockerbie and surrounding farms and fields. Eleven people on the ground were also killed.

In 1991 two Libyan security officers were indicted for the crime. Their trial began in May 2000.
Al-Megrahi
The key prosecution claims were:
1.  Several weeks before the attack, one of the accused, Baset al-Megrahi, purchased a selection of clothes from a Maltese clothing shop.


2. Pieces of the clothing were found at the crash site.

3.  Embedded within one of the pieces was a 4mm square fragment - PT35(b) - of an electronic timer board.

4.  The FBI had proved that the fragment came from a batch of 20 such boards delivered in 1985 to Libya by Swiss electronics supplier MEBO.

Fragment PT35(b).
5.  Two witnesses would identify the suspects and prove the case beyond doubt. The first, a CIA informant Majid Giaka; the second, a Maltese shopkeeper Toni Gauci. 


The trial judges decided that Giaka  was untrustworthy, leaving Gauci as the sole identification witness.
Discredited CIA witness Majid Giaka
On 31st January 2001 al-Megrahi was found guilty. The second accused, Khalifa Fhimah, was freed with "No case to answer"
Fhimah: No case to answer.

In the years since the verdict it has become clear that the world has been cynically misled by the FBI, the CIA, and British and Scottish governments. 
1. In 1989 Britain's prime minister Margaret Thatcher was advised by the Americans not to enquire into the attack.


Thatcher: Knew nothing of Lockerbie.
2.  Even though she and her entourage had walked across the devastated town one day after the attack, she did not - in her 1993 memoir "The Downing Street Years" - mention the town of Lockerbie, nor the disaster that befell it with the bombing of Pan Am 103. 
When asked by Father of the House MP Tam Dalyell why, she said: "I know nothing of Lockerbie, and do not write about something I do not know about."  Tam Dalyell had the clear impression that she had avoided the question of Lockerbie because the Americans had warned her away from the subject. 
3.  Seven years after the verdict the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) discovered significant new evidence concealed by police and Crown Office from the trial judges and defence team.
4.  The SCCRC discovered a secret letter written by the King of Jordan to British prime minister John Major indicating that the Libyans were innocent of the crime.
The King's letter claimed that the attack had been Iranian-
Major: Knew Libyans were innocent.
funded in revenge for the 1988 destruction by the USS Vincennes of an Iranian Air-Bus carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca. 

5. Unknown to most journalists and public, the King had agreed to place in protective custody Marwan Khreesat, expert bomb-maker for a Palestinian group, the PFLP-GC. Khreesat had made bombs for the group in Germany, to be used to bring down American passenger planes heading for the US. 
Khreesat: Bombs to destroy US planes.

6.  US and German intelligence knew that Iran had funded the Lockerbie attack. They had assembled a full dossier of intelligence proving that Khreesat and the Palestinian group were guilty. 

7.  On the sudden discovery of PT35(b), however, US intelligence reversed direction and accused Libya of the crime.
    8. The British government tried on two occasions to prevent the king's letter becoming public. The first, a Public Interest Immunity Certificate signed by Foreign Secretary David Miliband; the second, an unsuccessful attempt by Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt to close down a Scottish newspaper to prevent publication of the story.
    Burt: Intended to close down newspaper.

      9.  The SCCRC re-examined evidence given in the trial and discovered that al-Megrahi was not on the island of Malta on the day that the clothing was purchased.
        10.  The SCCRC also discovered that police diaries of chief police investigator Harry Bell contained a record of multi-million dollar offers of payment to the Maltese shopkeeper Gauci "provided" - in the words of a letter to Harry Bell from the US Department of Justice - "he gives evidence." 

          Gauci. $3 million for his evidence
          11.  The SCCRC also re-examined all the evidence given by Gauci. They concluded that his so-called "identification" was founded on numerous viewings of photographs of al-Megrahi in the media and magazines, all linking him to the bombing. Gauci's evidence was therefore not credible, and the trial judges had been mistaken.

          12. From the SCCRC's finding concerning Gauci, another extraordinary fact has emerged. If Megrahi was not on the Island of Malta on the day of the purchase of clothes, Gauci never met him. How then could Gauci recall meeting him or what he looked like?

          ****
          Was the Lockerbie fragment PT35(b) a fake? During the trial in 2000 there were suspicions about how it had been discovered and reported on by government scientists. The trial judges had discounted these suspicions.

          Then in 2009 the al-Megrahi defence team made a startling discovery. In the years since the trial and first appeal they had managed to obtain a huge set of documents from police and Scottish Crown archives. Among the documents was the forensic notebook of scientific witness Allen Feraday.

          Feraday had compared PT35(b) with control samples from MST13 timer circuit boards similar to those supplied to Libya in 1985 by MEBO.

          He told the trial judges: "the fragment materials and tracking pattern are similar in all respects" to that of the MST13 timer.

          But nine years prior to the trial, on 1st August 1991, when examining both the fragment and a MEBO MST13 timer circuit board, he had made two hand-written entries in his notebook which contradicted this. 

          Here are photocopies from Feraday's notebook. The first records that the tracking on fragment PT35(b) is protected by a layer of "Pure tin". 
          PT35(b): Protective cover of 100% tin.
          Police control sample: Protective cover of alloy. 70% tin - 30% lead











          The second records that the tracking on the circuit of a control sample MST13 board is covered by an alloy of "70% tin and 30% lead".
          Feraday and the police were fully aware of the difference. Two police scientific advisers suggested that the heat of the explosion might have evaporated the lead content of the alloy, leaving pure tin. 

          Another police adviser working for Ferranti International noted that fragment PT35(b) had indications of being "home made". 

          Neither the scientist's reports nor the Ferranti letter were followed up. All remained hidden in police files. The police and Crown Office ensured that the judges and defence team remained unaware of their contents. 

          In the light of this new information the defence team consulted two prominent independent experts in the field. The experts repeatedly heat tested the evaporation theory with temperatures exceeding that of the bomb explosion. But the alloy of 70/30 tin/lead remained just that. 

          Thuring, the company which manufactured the circuit boards used in MST13 timers , confirmed in an affidavit that they had always used a 70/30 tin/lead combination.  Fragment PT35(b) could not have come from one of their circuit boards. How it was made and by whom remains a mystery.

          Feraday either perjured himself or was grossly negligent. It was upon his statement and the identification evidence by Gauci that the case against Baset al-Megrahi would turn.


          Jane and Jim Swire
          The mystery surrounding fragment PT35(b) was examined in great detail by investigative author John Ashton in his 2012 book Megrahi: The Lockerbie Evidence.

          On the morning of the book's publication, announced at Edinburgh's 2012 International Book Fair, Prime Minister David Cameron described John Ashton's account as "An insult to the bereaved and dead of Lockerbie".

          The Lockerbie campaign will continue. We intend to prove - with the help of prominent friends from around the world - that the Lockerbie verdict was a disastrous miscarriage of justice.

          Sunday, 18 June 2017

          Can Gaddafi's son Saif re-unite Libya?

          [What follows is an article today featured on the blogsite of Professor Robert Black QC. It is based on a long article by Owei Lakemfa headlined There was a country called Libya published yesterday on the Nigerian website The News. We are deeply grateful to Professor Black for his assistance.]

          Saif al-Islam Ghaddafi (...)  the best known son of Muammar Ghaddafi was set free this week. He had
          Saif Gaddafi.
          been detained for six years since November 19, 2011 when following the Libyan ‘Civil War’ he was captured by the Abu Bakr al-Sadiq Brigade while attempting to flee to Niger Republic. (...)

          Saif, given his father’s legacy, his own force of character and the anarchy in the country, is a force to be reckoned with. Many of those who knew peace under Ghaddafi, had perhaps the best social security in the world and the joy of being able to carry out basic human activities like going to the market, taking children to school and family on a picnic, might be nostalgic for the old era. Many in the middle and upper classes who could go to the airport and take an international flight rather than risk a road journey to neigbouring Tunisia, might yearn for the return of the Ghaddafi days. Many of those who lived in a secure and peaceful Libya would long for the days they had a country worthy of its name. Therein lies the appeal of Saif.
          A freed Saif may be crucial in national dialogue, restoration of peace, national reconstruction and unity; a country with multiple governments cannot be said to be a country. But in a large sense, his role will
          Massive reconstruction required.
          be determined by the forces on the ground, the logic of the Libyan trajectory, his perception of the various armed groups in the country, and of course, the extent of the intervention of Europe and America in the internal affairs of Libya.
          It was these international policemen from Brussels and Washington who setup Libya for the kill. It was they and their agents who for decades sold the crap to the world that President Ghaddafi was a lunatic [sitting] on huge oil wells that they can put to better use. They were the forces that isolated Libya and were alarmed that Ghaddafi was not only bankrolling African unity but also wanted an international monetary medium of exchange independent of the NATO countries.
          They are the forces that cooked up the lie that Libya agents planted a bomb in the Pan Am Flight 103 which on December 21, 1988 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland killing all 259 on board and 11 on ground. These are the same people who accused Libya of sponsoring terrorism and on April 14, 1986, without a declaration of war, bombed Tripoli killing over 70 people.
          They are the same gang that imposed a No-Fly-Zone over the entire country threatening to shoot down any aircraft that violated the ban, until the
          Mandela - defied the West.
          unforgettable Nelson Mandela flew into Libya daring them to bring down his aircraft. It is these same forces that engineered the February 2011 uprising from Benghazi and provided the insurgents massive air power to smash the Ghaddafi government and impose the present chaos.
          Huge food aid programmes needed.
          But for these forces of colonialism and neo-colonialism, Libya might not today, be a basket case. But for them, tens of thousands of Libyans might not have died in half a dozen years of chaos, and the over five thousand Libyans who perished in the Mediterranean Sea trying to reach Europe, might still have been alive.
          Libya was [seven years ago] prosperous and self-sufficient. Today, thanks to the West, 2.5 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian aid including food. Saif’s transformation since 2011, might be for good. 

          Friday, 26 May 2017

          Libya: The Trail of Tears.

          Six years ago Britain, America and France, aided by NATO
          An act of Humanity.
          planes and bombs "liberated" Libya. In Tony Blair's words, it was "an act of humanity". 


          Here is the British government's current assessment. Note the final paragraph regarding travel insurance. Can we afford the premiums?

          There is reference to the Government of National Accord (GNA), officially recognised by the United Nations,  pressurised as it is by the USA, Britain and France.  In reality it is not a government, more of a parish council controlling a small corner of the city of Tripoli. 

          Across the entire country hundreds of warring militant groups, and in Benghazi and the East, the forces of self-proclaimed strong man - a second Gaddafi, perhaps? - General Haftar. 

          Millions of refugees flooding north to Europe. No government, no political structures, no financial structures, no future, no hope. Just Western organisations quietly filleting the nation's oil reserves. 

          2011. A nation destroyed. 
          Britain and Europe are currently troubled by the word "terrorism", and "why do they hate us and our values?" Is the answer staring us in the face, but we cannot, will not, see? 


          An extract from current government advice:

          "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) continues to advise against all travel to Libya, and for British nationals still in Libya to leave immediately by commercial means. Although the Government of National Accord (GNA) is working to restore stability and security to Libya, intense fighting continues in a number of areas and local security situations can quickly deteriorate.
          Terrorists are very likely to try to carry out attacks in Libya. There remains a
          Millions of refugees leaving Libyan shores.
          high threat throughout the country of terrorist attacks and kidnap against foreigners, including from Daesh-affiliated extremists (formerly referred to as ISIL) and Al Qaeda, as well as armed militias. Since 2015, Daesh have attacked a number of oil and gas installations and killed or kidnapped workers, including foreign nationals. 
          The British Embassy in Tripoli remains temporarily closed, and is unable to provide consular assistance.
          Fighting has caused the temporary suspension or closure of airports, closed roads and led to the closure of some border crossings. All airports are vulnerable to attack. Tripoli International Airport has been closed since 13 July 2014. Limited commercial departure options are sometimes available, but you should check with your airline. On 23 December 2016, an internal Afriqah Airways A320 flight from Sabha to Mitiga International Airport in Tripoli was hijacked and diverted to Malta. All passengers and crew were released and the motives of the hijackers were political.
          If you choose to travel to Libya against FCO advice, you should consider your security arrangements carefully and take all necessary security precautions, including contingency plans. If you’re entering Libya as a media representative, you should get press accreditation from the relevant Libyan authorities.
          You must get permission before taking any photographs or interviewing at or near military facilities. If you choose to travel to Libya against FCO advice, you should get the right visa, or risk deportation. 
          If you’re abroad and you need emergency help from the UK government, contact the nearest British embassy, consulate or high commission. 

          If you choose to travel to Libya against FCO advice, you should take out comprehensive travel and medical insurance before you travel."

          Thursday, 25 May 2017

          For Robert Mueller is an honorable man

          On 30th August 2009 Professor Robert Black published the blog which we have reproduced in full below, together with a letter from Mueller to Kenny MacAskill, Scottish Justice Minister.


          Let us hope that in his new role as special prosecutor Mr Mueller will take more
          trouble to find the facts than he did in the case of the 2009 release of Baset al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds. 

          If he had consulted his own FBI researchers, and the other fifteen intelligence organisations of America, plus the huge intelligence gathering contractor Stratfor, he might have discovered that the case against al-Megrahi was not as solid as he and his cohorts trusted as some God-given truth from heaven. 

          He would have observed key facts such as:

          1. The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, two years prior to his hysterical, hectoring letter, had discovered six reasons for concluding that the conviction of al-Megrahi was unsafe.

          2. They had discovered that the chief Scottish police investigator had concealed a police diary from the trial; a diary proving that within days of the commencement of the police investigation, an offer of huge reward was available to the sole identification witness, a Maltese shopkeeper. In the words of the Department of Justice, it would be "unlimited monies, with $10,000 available immediately". The purpose of the $10,000 has never been established.

          3. Also at the date of his letter, he should have been aware that the sole forensic item said to point to Libya was highly suspect. Carefully controlled scientific trials performed by two reputable scientists proved
          Pure tin.
          70/30% alloy tin/lead.
          that a fragment of timer circuit board could not have come from a batch of timers available to and used by Libya. The details of those experiments, plus hand-written notes by a scientific witness who carried out metallurgical and other tests on the fragment, proved that the witness had either perjured himself, or had been grossly negligent. 


          ******

          Here is the blog, followed by Mueller's letter.

          30th August 2009.

          What do US cops know about justice?

          [This is the headline over Ian Bell's article in The Sunday Herald. The last section reads as follows:]

          Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the only man to be convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, is
          released from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds with three months left to live. The
          staged celebrations upon his return to Libya anger some people. His appeal against
          conviction - feasible even for a dead man, but pointless - has already been withdrawn, angering
          others. Some are desperate for the truth; others suspect a political fix. But America's fury appears
          boundless.

          Consider that. Scottish jurisdiction is not disputed. Nor is it news to Washington that Tony Blair
          stitched up a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya's Colonel Gaddafi in 2007 when only one
          Libyan was held in Britain. Nevertheless, Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice secretary, rejects
          that mechanism explicitly. Yet suddenly the whereabouts of the prisoner in the last dozen
          miserable weeks of his life matters hugely. And the word compassion causes unbridled anger.

          Scotland is treated to the thoughts, none kind, of Obama, Hillary Clinton and that dying paragon,
          Ted Kennedy. MacAskill and Alex Salmond don't raise the possibility that Megrahi's conviction
          was unsafe. No-one mentions the many efforts expended by Kennedy on behalf of Irish
          Republicanism.

          No-one asks how many Americans were convicted after the USS Vincennes brought down Iran
          Air flight 655 in 1986 with the loss of 290 lives. Guantanamo, Iraq, secret CIA torture prisons, the
          carnage in Afghanistan: Scotland's government remains circumspect.

          Then a cop intervenes. I say "cop"; I mean Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, a man with a
          shaky grasp of the Scottish system but every confidence in his all-American right to give a
          foreign government a dressing-down. He's "outraged", says his letter to Caledonia. "Your
          action makes a mockery of the rule of law," he tells MacAskill. "Your action gives comfort to
          terrorists around the world".

          There is little comfort, though, for anyone still harbouring illusions over American attitudes to
          American power. So now the head of the FBI, an institution with a fascinating history in the civil
          rights field, is laying down his law to someone else's democracy, to the country that gave the US
          many of the notions that fleshed out its constitution? Let's say we'll cope.

          In other parts, predictably, the Scottish cringe is at work. MacAskill has outraged "the world"
          ("To reprieve a seriously ill prisoner is an act of humanity" - Frankfurter Allgemeine, Germany).
          Tourists will scorn us; whisky sales will suffer; and Jack McConnell will have to do penance for
          our "shame". In other words, we will lose the essential friendship of America thanks to the
          unforgiveable crime of compassion.

          What is that sort of friendship worth? And what sort of friendship is it that loads rights on one
          side and responsibilities, defined unilaterally, on the other? Does it occur to no-one that some of
          America's actions have looked rather more heinous lately, and certainly more costly to human life,
          than a single ministerial decision? All that stirring talk of democracy sounds a little hollow, and not
           for the first time.

          MacAskill might be wrong, and those of us who have agreed with him might turn out to be wrong.
          I happen to believe Obama is wrong about Afghanistan: how many lives lost so far? But if the
          minister has erred, what is the nature of the error? You could say - though I do not - that he has
          been played for a dupe by London and Washington. The motives at work in the larger game stand
          little scrutiny, as usual. But MacAskill has made a moral choice: imagine. Those can go wrong.

          Megrahi, convicted of mass murder, may enjoy a startling recovery. If that happens the justice
          secretary and several doctors will look very stupid.

          They will not become culpable, however, and they will not have deserved the insults that flow
          from the likes of Mueller. We do things differently. In this regard, I'm certain, we do them better.

          It is America's curse that it finds the possibility inconceivable.

          [An opinion piece headed "MacAskill’s crime wasn’t to release a murderer but to disobey America"
          in The Sunday Herald by writer and lawyer Paul Laverty contains the following sentence:

          'I suspect MacAskill is castigated not so much for the release a dying man, but because he has
          refused to obey. US politicians expect their UK and Scottish counterparts to take up automatic
          poodle position just as Straw and Blair have always done. True to form New Labour in Scotland
          do the same; they seem more concerned with parochial point scoring or whisky sales in the US
          than any genuine concern for the understandable feelings of hurt on part of the families of the
          victims. But the great tragedy revealed by this circus is how we have collectively sacrificed our
          critical faculties, our sense of history, and replaced them with spineless humiliating subservience
          to the powerful. MacAskill's decision is a brave exception, but it is a disgrace to see him so
          cornered while the nauseating hypocrisy of the US goes virtually unexamined.'

          ******

          Letter to Kenny MacAskill from FBI Director Robert S Mueller

          Dear Mr. Secretary:

          Over the years I have been a prosecutor, and recently as the Director of the FBI, I have made it
          a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors, since only the prosecutor handling
          the case has all the facts and the law before him in reaching the appropriate decision.

          Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because
          I am familiar with the facts, and the law, having been the Assistant Attorney General in charge of
          the investigation and indictment of Megrahi in 1991.

          And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of
          "compassion."

          Your action in releasing Megrahi is as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice.
          Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law.

          Your action gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the
          quality of the investigation, the conviction by jury after the defendant is given all due process, and
          sentence appropriate to the crime, the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of "compassion."

          Your action rewards a terrorist even though he never admitted to his role in this act of mass
          murder and even though neither he nor the government of Libya ever disclosed the names and
          roles of others who were responsible.

          Your action makes a mockery of the emotions, passions and pathos of all those affected by the
          Lockerbie tragedy: the medical personnel who first faced the horror of 270 bodies strewn in the
          fields around Lockerbie, and in the town of Lockerbie itself; the hundreds of volunteers who
          walked the fields of Lockerbie to retrieve any piece of debris related to the breakup of the plane;
          the hundreds of FBI agents and Scottish police who undertook an unprecedented global
          investigation to identify those responsible; the prosecutors who worked for years - in some cases
          a full career - to see justice done.

          But most importantly, your action makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own
          on December 21, 1988.

          You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others
          involved in the investigation and prosecution.

          You could not have visited the small wooden warehouse where the personal items of those who
          perished were gathered for identification - the single sneaker belonging to a teenager; the
          Syracuse sweatshirt never again to be worn by a college student returning home for the holidays;
          the toys in a suitcase of a businessman looking forward to spending Christmas with his wife and
          children.

          You apparently made this decision without regard to the views of your partners in the investigation
          and prosecution of those responsible for the Lockerbie tragedy.

          Although the FBI and Scottish police, and prosecutors in both countries, worked exceptionally
          closely to hold those responsible accountable, you never once sought our opinion, preferring to
          keep your own counsel and hiding behind opaque references to "the need for compassion."

          You have given the family members of those who died continued grief and frustration. You have
          given those who sought to assure that the persons responsible would be held accountable the
          back of your hand.

          You have given Megrahi a "jubilant welcome" in Tripoli, according to the reporting. Where, I ask,
          is the justice?

          Sincerely yours,

          Robert S. Mueller, III
          Director

          [Note by Robert Black:]
           On 6 August 2009, The Times published a report containing the following:

          "The investigating officers who led the original inquiry into the Lockerbie bombing have made an
          unprecedented intervention in the case to argue against the release of the Libyan convicted of
          the attack.

          "In a letter to the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish police chief and the FBI boss
          who led the international investigation 20 years ago launch a powerfully worded plea against the
          release of Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, who is serving a minimum sentence of 25 years for his part
          in the bombing.

          "In the letter obtained by The Times, Stuart Henderson, the retired senior investigating officer at
          the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre, and Richard Marquise, the FBI special agent in charge of
          the US taskforce, whose detective work helped to convict Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi, insist that
          he is guilty. They also argue that his release would “nullify the dedicated work of dozens of law
          enforcement and intelligence officials around the world”."

          It is therefore untrue for the Director to suggest that the decision was taken without regard to, or
          in ignorance of, the views of the investigators (or at least some of them). His complaint (if he has
          one at all) therefore has to be that the ultimate decision was not one that they approved of.

          In civilised countries decisions regarding liberation of prisoners are not placed in the hands of
          policemen and prosecutors, nor are they accorded a veto over those decisions. Mr Mueller (and
          Mr Marquise) would probably wish that this were otherwise. The rest of us can be grateful that it
          is not.]

          Friday, 19 May 2017

          Julian Assange and Lockerbie


          Assange 
          Baset Al-Megrahi, suffering from terminal prostate cancer, was released on compassionate grounds in 2009. 

          He lived much longer than doctors had expected, but late in 2010 deteriorated severely. During 2011 he was kept alive only by intensive care, a massive regime of drugs and continuous help by his wife Aisha and his family. He died on the 20th May 2012.

          Only through the Wikileaks publication, by Julian Assange,  of secret American communications did we learn that, even as he lay on his deathbed in Tripoli, security contractors working for the US government were discussing the rendition and assassination of al-Megrahi. As employees of the US government they appeared to believe that they had a right to kill anyone, anywhere. 

          STRATFOR is a Texas-based global intelligence supplier to large corporations such as Dow Chemical Co.,Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and government agencies including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines, and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. 
          Fred Burton

          The Stratfor Vice-President is Fred Burton. One of his employees in 2011 was Director of Multi-media Brian Genchur.

          On August 19th 2011, in a circulated email, (Click here) Genchur wrote: "I would like to kill the terrorist [al-Megrahi] myself. In reality, I'm hunting for him on my own thru a few channels. If he can be found, I'll have him whacked." 

          Genchur then quoted Jim Swire's misgivings from a news interview: "I am worried for Baset. I can just see the unit they sent
          "Cause his oxygen to be removed..."
          to kill Osama Bin Laden being sent to extract Megrahi. Presumably they would kill him on the spot."


          Megrahi's family were continuously at his bedside. We can be sure that if Genchur and friends had carried out an assassination they would have killed all witnesses. 

          Five days later on 24th August 2011 Fred Burton, in an email generally circulated within the company, added (Click) a further statement: "While the world is focusing on the chaos in Libya counter-terrorism agents could take advantage of this window of opportunity to capture him [al-Megrahi]....  The symbolism of grabbing him and bringing him back to trial in a US court would resonate around the world".

          Six  weeks later (3rd October 2011) Burton added more advice to his employees, in an (Click) email to Anya Aliano of Stratfor: "Can you check to see if there is a Reward for Justice offer for his capture? I've heard we may have to cut a deal with the rebels to leave him alone. If so, I don't care and will try to have him grabbed or cause his oxygen to be removed. Thanks."

          Wednesday, 3 May 2017

          Scottish MSPs to monitor Megrahi appeal

          [based on yesterday's website of Professor Robert Black QC, Emeritus Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University:]


          Members of the Scottish Parliament will “watch with
          Megrahi's widow Aisha
          (Manchester Evening News)
          interest” the planned bid by the family of the man convicted for the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, to mount a renewed second appeal against his conviction.


          The case is expected to be handed in the near future to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review
          Dr Jim Swire, Son Ali al-Megrahi,
          Lawyer Aamer Anwar
          Commission (SCCRC) which investigates possible miscarriages of justice and will decide whether there are grounds for a second referral to the appeal court.

          The SCCRC has already ruled, in its 2007 assessment of the case that "a miscarriage of justice may have occurred". The ruling was based on six reasons,
          including the with-holding of key evidence by the chief police investigator of the case. [See our previous posts for additional grounds for this further appeal]

          Following that 2007 ruling, Baset al-Megrahi mounted
          Witness Gauci.
          Police withheld evidence.
          a second appeal. Due, however, to the onset of terminal cancer, he withdrew his appeal in exchange for release in 2009 on compassionate grounds by Scottish Minister for Justice Kenny MacAskill.


          In addition to the matter of this new appeal, MSPs on Holyrood’s Justice Committee agreed to keep open a long-running petition from Justice for Megrahi (JFM) campaigners calling for an independent inquiry into Megrahi’s conviction. The inquiry will include events in Europe and security misjudgments and lapses at Heathrow Airport prior to and immediately following the 1988 bombing attack.


          In a written submission, JFM campaigners said reports of the planned appeal bid indicate “a significant development for those pursuing the truth about Lockerbie”.


          MSP Committee convener Margaret Mitchell said: “Recently publicity suggests that the family of Mr Megrahi will launch a bid to appeal against his conviction in the coming weeks so we will watch that with interest and see if that affects where we go from here.” (...)


          Al-Megrahi's widow Aisha and son Ali are expected to present to the SCCRC concerns over the evidence which convicted Megrahi, including that given by Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who died last year.



          You can read the Scotsman report here.