Written by I have followed the story of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi and his release on compassionate grounds with a little interest but little thought for why it should turn into such a large stooshie. The reason I suppose is because I have always just felt there was something very wrong with his conviction. It just didn’t feel right and seemed more of a case of having a figure to blame for the sad deaths of the Lockerbie Bomb victims for political reasons.
I also suspect that Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was guilty of terrorism at some point but unlikely that it was do with Lockerbie. He was just chosen as the fall guy, just as I suspect Libya was chosen as a good target for the blame. He was to my mind just another example of the wrong person, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think the attached article gives a few reason why we should the suspect that the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi is and was suspect. The “compassionate” release by the Scottish Government may just have hidden a few blushes for a number of countries and people who conspired to secure his conviction, if his appeal had been allowed to continue.
A few excerpts to help you along:
4. As far as the material aspects of due process and fairness of the trial are concerned, the presence of at least two representatives of a foreign government in the courtroom during the entire period of the trial was highly problematic. The two state prosecutors from the US Department of Justice were seated next to the prosecution team. They were not listed in any of the official information documents about the Court’s officers produced by the Scottish Court Service, yet they were seen talking to the prosecutors while the Court was in session, checking notes and passing on documents. For an independent observer watching this from the visitors’ gallery, this created the impression of “supervisors” handling vital matters of the prosecution strategy and deciding, in certain cases, which documents (evidence) were to be released in open court or what parts of information contained in a certain document were to be withheld (deleted).
7. It was a consistent pattern during the whole trial that — as an apparent result of political interests and considerations — efforts were undertaken to withhold substantial information from the Court. One of the most obvious cases in point was that of the former Libyan double agent, Abdul Majid Giaka, and the CIA cables related to him. Some of the cables were finally released after much insistence from the part of the defense, some were never made available. The Court was apparently content with this situation, which is hard to understand for an independent observer. It may never be fully known up to which extent relevant information was hidden from the Court. The most serious case, however, is related to the special defense launched by defense attorneys Taylor and Keen. It was officially stated by the Lord Advocate that substantial new information had been received from an unnamed foreign government relating to the defense case. The content of this information was never revealed, the requested specific documents were never provided by a foreign government. The alternative theory of the defense — leading to conclusions contradictory to those of the prosecution — was never seriously investigated. Amid shrouds of secrecy and “national security” considerations, that avenue was never seriously pursued — although it was officially declared as being of major importance for the defense case. This is totally incomprehensible to any rational observer. By not having pursued thoroughly and carefully an alternative theory, the Court seems to have accepted that the whole legal process was seriously flawed in regard to the requirements of objectivity and due process.
10 A general pattern of the trial consisted in the fact that virtually all people presented by the prosecution as key witnesses were proven to lack credibility to a very high extent, in certain cases even having openly lied to the Court. Particularly as regards Mr. Bollier and Mr. Giaka, there were so many inconsistencies in their statements and open contradictions to statements of other witnesses that the resulting confusion was much greater than any clarification that may have been obtained from parts of their statements. Their credibility as such was shaken. It seems highly arbitrary and irrational to choose only parts of their statements for the formulation of a verdict that requires certainty “beyond any reasonable doubt.”
13 The Opinion of the Court is exclusively based on circumstantial evidence and on a series of highly problematic inferences. As to the undersigned’s knowledge, there is not one single piece of material evidence linking the two accused to the crime. In such a context, the guilty verdict in regard to the first accused appears to be arbitrary, even irrational. This impression is enforced when one considers that the actual wording of the larger part of the Opinion of the Court points more into the direction of a “not proven” verdict. The arbitrary aspect of the verdict is becoming even more obvious when one considers that the prosecution, at a rather late stage of the trial, decided to “split” the accusation and to change the very essence of the indictment by renouncing the identification of the second accused as a member of Libyan intelligence so as to actually disengage him from the formerly alleged collusion with the first accused in the supposed perpetration of the crime. Some light is shed on this procedure by the otherwise totally incomprehensible “not guilty” verdict in regard to the second accused.
16. On the basis of the above observations and evaluation, the undersigned has — to his great dismay — reached the conclusion that the trial, seen in its entirety, was not fair and was not conducted in an objective manner. Indeed, there are many more questions and doubts at the end of the trial than there were at its beginning. The trial has effectively created more confusion than clarity and no rational observer can make any statement on the complex subject matter “beyond any reasonable doubt”. Irrespective of this regrettable outcome, the search for the truth must continue. This is the requirement of the rule of law and the right of the victims’ families and of the international public.
18. Regrettably, through the conduct of the Court, disservice has been done to the important cause of international criminal justice. The goals of criminal justice on an international level cannot be advanced in a context of power politics and in the absence of an elaborate division of powers. What is true on the national level, applies to the transnational level as well. No national court can function if it has to act under pressure from the executive power and if vital evidence is being withheld from it because of political interests. The realities faced by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands have demonstrated this truth in a very clear and dramatic fashion — the political impact stemming, in this particular case, from a highly complex web of national and transnational interests related to the interaction among several major actors on the international scene.
19. The undersigned would like to express his humble opinion — or hope, for that matter — that an appeal, if granted, will correct the deficiencies of the trial as explained above. It goes without saying that all will depend on the integrity and independence of the five judges of an eventual Court of Appeal operating under Scottish law.
I suspect that all the arguments about compassion and victims etc are nought but a façade to hide the embarrassment that many governments would have felt if the appeal had gone ahead. Many of those arguing loudest and longest had the most to lose apart, of course, from MaCavity who is as usual hiding away whilst the sh*t is flying.
Now to face the stooshie at home as my wife tells me why all my arguments about Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi are wrong.
“It goes without saying that all will depend on the integrity and independence of the five judges of an eventual Court of Appeal operating under Scottish law.”
Integrity and Independence – says it all really!
I hope you are not casting doubt there, I’m sure that they would have done exactly the right thing as told them by our Glorious Leaders.