Twenty-one years later after the bombing with which it began, the Lockerbie saga just won’t go away. The most recent media coverage has revolved around the release of the convicted al-Megrahi and his return to Libya. His release and the hero’s welcome he received provoked international outrage, most vocally from the U.S. Was it really a straightforward case of the Scottish Justice Minster experiencing a tug on his heart strings after meeting al-Megrahi, terminally ill with cancer?
The attack
On December 21, 1988 at about 7:20pm, over a small town in the Scottish Borders, Pan Am 103, heading from Heathrow to New York’s JFK Airport and carrying primarily American passengers, fell from the sky . A bomb exploded from within the hold, tearing a hole into the side of the plane, which then snapped into pieces in the air. There was no time for the cabin crew to make a distress signal, no emergency procedures were initiated – all on board fell to the ground from 31,000 ft. The explosion killed 11 people on the ground Lockerbie. No passengers or crew on board the plane survived. Fatalities totalled 270.
Theories abound as to the perpetrators and motives of the attack. Books, films and countless documentaries have publicised the inconsistencies surrounding the case (notably few have been screened on U.S. television). Initial blame focused on three countries: Iran, Syria and Libya. Following the erroneous shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane by the USS Vincennes 5 months earlier, Iran had likely motive. The U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency indicated that the Palestine Front for the Liberation of Palestine in conjunction with elements of the Iranian government and Hezbollah were planning to attack a U.S. target. 8 weeks before the bombing a PFLP cell was arrested in West Germany and bombs similar to that used on Pan Am 103 were confiscated.
The trial
However, in 2001 a Libyan intelligence officer, Abelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, was convicted of involvement in the bombing and sentenced to life imprisonment, amid extreme doubts over the circumstantial evidence that secured the conviction.
The trial was conducted under Scottish criminal law, before three judges and no jury at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands. The entire investigation, trial and aftermath has been immensely complex, and al-Megrahi’s release has only served to fan the flames of conspiracy theorists and add to the international controversy. Skepticism of some of many of the emerging theories is important.
Potentially significant evidence was either not followed up or not presented at trial. It is alleged that quantities of heroin, large sums of U.S. dollars and a T-shirt bearing Hezbollah insignia were found at the crash site in Lockerbie, claims that were never investigated. American agents were present at the crash scene and a recent documentary film has suggested a fragment of the explosive device left the U.K. and was examined in the U.S.: an allegation which, if true, could have resulted in a claim of contamination of evidence. Further facts that raise questions are: the party of American intelligence officers on board the flight returning to the U.S. after an aborted hostage-rescue mission in Lebanon, the anonymous warning made to the U.S. Embassy in Finland in early December 1988, warning that a Pan Am flight from Frankfurt would be blown up by Palestinian terrorists in the next two weeks. Still, politically and logistically, bringing an Iranian sponsored Palestinian terrorist cell to justice would have been nigh on impossible. Undoubtedly Libya was a more convenient accused.
The prosecution maintained that the bomb was placed in luggage in Malta. By the end of the trial the defense was suggesting the possibility of it being planted in Heathrow, a theory supported by Robert Baer, a former CIA agent (played by George Clooney in Syriana!) He suggests that it makes no sense for the bomb to be put on the plane at Malta and having to make two stops before it exploded on its way to the U.S. Much more likely, he maintains, that the bomb had been planted at Heathrow. Months after the conviction of al-Megrahi, a former security guard at Heathrow revealed he had discovered a break in at the Pan Am luggage facility on the day of the attack. The prosecution case relied on the premise that a bag was checked on a plane from Malta, not Heathrow, without a corresponding passenger. In a civil action brought by Air Malta over a “libellous” documentary that showed the “bomb bag” being loaded onto the plane at Malta, the airline produced evidence proving all bags had been accounted for and accompanied by passengers. The action settled out of court.
Also key to the prosecution case was the witness evidence of Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper and tailor, who claimed to have sold the clothes found in the suitcase containing the bomb to al-Megrahi. Considerable doubt arose from Gauci’s evidence, particularly in light of allegations of a $2 million pay-off. Gauci was non-committal as to whether al-Megrahi was the man who purchased the clothes from his shop. The closest he got to a positive identification was to state that there was a “resemblance”.
He was uncertain of the date he sold the clothes and was memorably described by the man who indicted al-Megrahi, Lord Fraser (Scotland’s most senior law officer at the time) as “not quite the full shilling”. The UN appointed external arbiter stated after the trial: “there is not one single piece of material evidence linking [Megrahi] to the crime… the guilty verdict appears to be arbitrary, even irrational.” He has also said that the split decision, where one accused was found guilty and the other not guilty is highly questionable and further, that it is impossible to believe that a lone intelligence officer could have masterminded and organised the attack. While the Libyans did eventually (in a roundabout way) accept responsibility for the attack and paid out billions in compensation to Lockerbie victims’ families, Libyan government officials label this move as purely pragmatic: “ [it was] easier for us to buy peace and this is why we agreed to compensation.”
A Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (a body established to investigate alleged miscarriages of justice) inquiry was launched and a recommendation given that there should be a new appeal. This second appeal was conveniently dropped before Al Megrahi’s release. Why? Was a deal done? Was Al Megrahi persuaded to drop his appeal so he could go home to die? Therein lies the true injustice – and the only assumption that can be drawn is it wouldn’t be in the interests of any government concerned to pursue the appeal.
Al-Megrahi's release: a question of British interests, or of Scottish independence?
So, unanswered questions engulf the Lockerbie affair. An official inquiry, so desired by the families of the Scottish victims and the general public, has been repeatedly refused; the UN is now being called on to conduct an international inquiry. The evidential issues have never been resolved. Factor in the British commercial presence in Libya (oil and arms trade), the Blair government’s favorable attitude toward Gaddafi and Gaddafi’s volte-face desire to ingratiate himself into the international community. Add to this the extraordinary prisoner extradition agreement in 2007 (that the Scots refused to carry out) aimed solely at returning al-Megrahi to Libya and the picture of emerges is one that appears to leave the U.K. government with much explaining to do.
Whether the conspiracy theories have anything to do with al-Megrahi’s release is an entirely separate issue. What all these conspiracy theorists (who see the release as the latest development in a series of unorthodox goings-on) ignore is the “Scottish” issue. Scotland has a distinct legal system, an entirely independent criminal justice system and, since 1998, a devolved Scottish Parliament with the power to legislate on most “domestic” matters. The most recent Scottish election resulted in an Scottish Nationalist majority coalition, with a clear autonomist agenda. Relations between the Scottish Government and Westminster are frosty to say the least. The idea that the Nationalist administration would risk international censure by releasing al-Megrahi on the orders of Gordon Brown to further “British” business interests is, to my mind, absurd. Release on compassionate grounds is a genuine tradition in Scots criminal law and some suggest this was an example of the Scottish Government, keen to prove itself as an international actor, doing something uniquely “Scottish”. There was widespread support within Scotland for the release of al-Megrahi; perhaps as a result of the cynicism surrounding his conviction and the outspokenness of those advocating for his release, or at least re-trial. However the American reaction to the decision and the quagmire of controversy surrounding it negate any political expediency it may have achieved.
Currently, al-Megrahi is releasing documents he would have used in his latest appeal on the internet, documents which he says prove his innocence. But despite his release he will die guilty in the eyes of the law. Without a public inquiry the unanswered questions will never be answered and the alleged miscarriage of justice remains just that — alleged.
Kate Spencer is an LL.M. student from Scotland.
My wife's father is hessaby as in www.hessaby.com (they stole his cash and put it there) and my mother-in-law family is related by marriage tot the Pakravans., who headed the SAVAKPan Am was nicknamed PanIran as the Shah's family was the largest shareholder. I have extreme amount of details of exactly was going on
from the Iranians wanting him to return their assets to other coup attempts to 6 months before the Shah son pretended he was bankrupt in a public trial, to my wifes relative coming to our house talking about the coup and we did not know they were in Washington DC, to the Iran Contra hearings trial that was going to start Feb 20 th, 1989 to the tipping of the coup to the Iranian govt, ,to something in writing I can prove the coup to the Salamon Rushtie Feb 14th insult to islam to get the people on the street to avoid the coup to the Iranian govt announcement of a coup by 'dissent mullahs' announced at the time to the negiotations between the Bush people involved pretending they were going to make a deal to the 'nice' stories plant in US newspapers at the time (including the Post) as part of the negotation to the fact the bomb had to placed out of London based on the flight path as I worked at USAir at the time creating the flight plans for the 'planes to fly themselves' to overt CIA agents around me at the time to the fact that Bollier, the guy who made the timer for the bomb's wide was IRANIAN and the Libyans told me and said they were not allowed to say... there were 3 witness only.. the main one was trashed.. Bollier and a guy whom said he soldm the Libyan a suitcase in Malta.. hence, one the suitcase guy would be left.. the Libyans did not put up a defence in exchange for evidence to trash the main witness on the stand to what an overt CIA agent told me in the US 4 years later.. etc. etc and the details of several coups to the new World bank (my wie's cousin involved who used to work at the work bank)and US loans starting May 1990 to Iran to the fact that PANAm was shut down 18 months later as they thought it would be targeted again because of the Shah connection (the US airlines go in and out of bankruptcy all the time - this was the one of the first US airlines - an ICON) etc
I also know where the Iranian govt officials have money in the US, Canada and UK; the back door dealing etccall me for details.. Barry Lanza 00 44 1786831554.. My father-in-law was a convicted spy given amnesty
I find their silence on this topic more informative than their noise on other aspects.
Surely the knowledge of certain reward should have been made known to the trial judges?
When Ms. Spencer says there were "extreme doubts" about the evidence at the time of conviction, remember that there were three senior Scottish judges who were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt about the strength of the evidence. Their opinions are the only ones which counted. Others not seeing the evidence or observing the demeanor of each witness have no valid claim to say there are doubts about the evidence.
Ms. Spencer restates allegations of evidence not followed up and that is not true. She buys into the conspiracy theories rather than reviews the facts-- every single one of her "theories have been tested by apolitical and experienced police officers and found to be without merit. Allegations of "Americans" at the crime scene were raised at trial and shown to be false.
Unfortunately, Ms. Spencer's article demonstrates her “pop culture” mentality when she describes Robert Baer as a person who was played by George Clooney in a movie. I guess that will give Baer more credibility, at least in her eyes. Unfortunately, Mr. Baer was not involved in the investigation and deserves no more credibility than say. George Clooney. Baer’s discussion of the placement of the bomb is not correct because he is of the opinion that the bomb itself was a PFLP-GC device, prone to barometric conditions, something the Lockerbie bomb did not have—it was a straight timer. There is no evidence the bomb went on the plane in London but there is evidence it came from Malta and through Frankfurt.
I am certain this newspaper would not have space to print each and every rebuttal point I would like to make. However, let me say a few things which will summarize the facts. There was no tampering with evidence. No witnesses were ever promised or given one dollar/pound in exchange for their testimony. Each witness got on the witness stand at trial and could say with a clear conscience, they had not been paid or promised to have been paid for their testimony. Ms. Spencer’s comment about the description of the Maltese shopkeeper by the former Scottish Lord Advocate was also incomplete—he may have said that the shopkeeper was “not quite the full shilling” but the rest of what he said is more significant. In an article dated October 28, 2005, Mr. Fraser told BBC, “…I have no aspersions to cast on Tony Gauci’s evidence.” He went on to say, “Indeed such was the thoroughness of the investigation and the way in which it developed that I probably would place greater emphasis and credibility on Mr. Gauci’s evidence than any of my successors as lord advocate.” He further said that any view of his was not relevant as all that mattered was the view of the judges. “Three of Scotland’s High Court judges heard him give evidence properly subject to cross examination and they were specific in their conclusion that he was entirely credible.” I would hope that if Ms. Spencer is studying the law, she remembers when dealing with her clients and the courts to recount all the facts, not just those which help her case. That is truly justice.