[I am grateful to Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph for allowing me to reproduce the following extract from their unpublished book Lockerbie: Unfinished Business.]
Not contained in Harry Bell’s diaries, but held on police files, was information concerning a David Wright, a second identification witness to the purchase of clothes in Gauci’s shop.
On 6th November 1989 the BBC Six O’Clock News showed footage which mentioned for the first time that a suitcase containing the bomb was introduced in Malta. Images of Gauci’s shop Mary’s House were displayed. The commentary mentioned fragments of clothes found at the crash site, and that they had been purchased from Mary’s House by an Arab man. Watching the programme was a regular visitor to Malta, Mr David Wright.
A week later Wright contacted Dumfries and Galloway police. One month later, on 18th December 1989 he signed a statement. He claimed that he was a frequent visitor to Malta and a friend of Tony Gauci. He would spend time in Tony’s shop. During one of his visits made between 28th October and the 28th of November 1988 he was in the shop when two men entered saying they were interested in purchasing some clothes. With Gauci offering guidance they proceeded to buy various items of clothing. They were smartly dressed, one wore a dark suit and he had swarthy skin. Both were aged over forty-five years. They spoke English, said they were Libyan, and were staying at the Holiday Inn. During the purchase, Wright recalls Gauci boasting that he could tell the size of people just by looking at them.
Wright gave descriptions of the two men, neither of which matched the accused al-Megrahi. He said that he subsequently recognised the younger of the two men from a TV programme when the man appeared as a spokesman for the Libyan government. Wright claimed that Gauci later described the two as “Libyan Pigs”. Wright told the police that when he spoke to Gauci around the time of the BBC News broadcast, Gauci appeared not to remember the event.
The SCCRC traced the police records of Wright’s contacts and interviews. His statement was initially flagged by the police for action on 18th December 1989, but changed to “filed” on 13th February 1990. Seventeen years later, on 5th December 2007 Wright was interviewed by officers of the SCCRC and signed an affidavit restating all of his previous account.
The key feature of Wright’s statement is the date of the purchase. The Crown made much of al-Megrahi’s presence in Malta on 7th December 1988. And that day was chosen by the judges as the most likely, seemingly on the premise that unproved inferences elsewhere in the Crown case indicated that al-Megrahi was the culprit. Yet if Wright’s statement is correct, the purchase must have been on a different day, possibly but not necessarily the 23rd November. Whatever day it was, al-Megrahi could not have been one of the purchasers, since his passport records showed that he was not in Malta on any of the days when Wright was present.
Wright’s statement was given to the Dumfries and Galloway police at the height of their investigations led by Harry Bell and DCI Gilchrist. “The most intense police investigation in Scottish legal history” was daily news throughout the force. It seems to me inconceivable that the police officer or officers recording Wright’s statement were unaware that it was a critical link in the chain of evidence. I have no doubt that they sought advice from senior officers.
There are, therefore, serious questions that must be put to those who recorded Wright’s statement and filed it. Who did you inform about the David Wright statement? Were they aware of its content? What instructions did they give you as to what to do with the statement? When the decision was taken to file the statement and not include it in the Lockerbie evidence file, who took that decision? Was that person Harry Bell or DCI Gilchrist? Unfortunately, without a second appeal or further inquiry into Lockerbie, these questions will never be addressed. The public and the judges will remain unaware of their significance, and yet another element of Scottish justice will remain corrupted.
Wright’s statement remained undisturbed in police archives for eighteen years. The trial and appeal judges and the defence team were unaware of its existence.* We can though be sure that if the defence had been aware of Wright’s statement they would have invited him to give evidence. And if credible he would have contradicted Gauci’s recollection of events. Stronger cross examination of Gauci would have followed which almost certainly would have changed the direction of the trial. Yet the information was never revealed by the Scottish Crown. It was a clear breach of the Lord Advocate’s duty to disclose the statement to the defence and the court, and raises serious doubts concerning the integrity of the entire investigation.**
*SCCRC disclosures and Grounds of Appeal page 143.
**Ibid pages 142 – 148.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Malta Wright. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Malta Wright. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday 4 February 2011
Sunday 22 February 2009
Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
Wednesday 22 February 2017
Investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence
[What follows is excerpted from an article published in the Malta Independent on this date in 2009:]
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
Friday 22 February 2013
From the archive: Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence
[During this fallow period for news relating to the Lockerbie case, here is an item originally posted on this blog four years ago on 22 February 2009:]
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's (ie 22/02/09) edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
But, Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's (ie 22/02/09) edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
Sunday 22 February 2015
"No reasonable basis in trial court's judgment for its conclusion..."
What follows is an item originally posted on this blog on this date in 2009:
Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
Lockerbie investigators to travel to Malta to seek new evidence
[From an article by David Lindsay in the online version of today's edition of The Malta Independent. The full article can be read here.]
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is due to travel to Malta in the very near future to “actively seek the consent for disclosure” of sensitive documents that could determine a the outcome of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi’s appeal, the High Court in Edinburgh was told on Friday.
The delegation will be looking for previously undisclosed documents related to statements given by a friend of Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, David Wright, who in 1989 raised concerns over Gauci’s identification of al-Megrahi.
The news comes amid arguments presented by al-Megrahi’s defence team, which contended evidence given by the potential witness in the Lockerbie bombing investigation could have undermined the prosecution’s case, but had never been presented in court or given to the defence team. (...)
Gauci claimed that on 7 December 1988 he had sold the former Libyan intelligence officer the clothes later found inside the suitcase holding the bomb that brought down Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 270 people aboard.
Al-Megrahi’s defence team argued on Friday that evidence given by a friend of Gauci, a certain David Wright could very well have scuttled the prosecution’s case but the evidence had never been presented in court or handed over to the defence team.
Wright was said to have approached the Maltese police in September 1989 and the officers in England in December with a statement contradicting Gauci’s evidence.
Defence counsel Maggie Scot argued that Wright had given a “remarkably” similar description to that used by Gauci to implicate al-Megrahi in the bombing of another unrelated sale made by Gauci at his family’s shop, Mary’s House in Sliema.
But Ms Scott argued that the details of Wright’s statement, which could contradict and possibly negate Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented in court and that the defence team had never even seen it.
Speaking in court on Friday, Ms Scott said, “Mr Wright gave statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he had witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears a remarkable resemblance to the sale to the two men Mr Gauci described.”
Al-Megrahi’s defence is demanding that the previously undisclosed evidence it believes will help free their client be made available in time for the commencement of the appeal hearing, due to begin on 27 April.
Such evidence includes any documents related to Wright, as well as any documents showing Mr Gauci had been interested in a financial reward for his evidence.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers are also asking for video footage of the identification parade in which Gauci had singled out al-Megrahi, as well as the details of those who had been selected to participate in the parade.
In addition to Malta, the Crown will also be approaching other foreign sources, but stressed some of the material being requested could have security implications in the respective countries should it be made public.
The call for documents related to Gauci’s interest in a financial reward for positively identifying al-Megrahi comes amid claims that Tony Gauci and his brother Paul were paid millions of dollars each by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation as a reward for their help in convicting al-Megrahi, claims the FBI vehemently denies. (...)
Al Megrahi was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing in 2001 and although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the SCCRC in June 2007 referred the appeal back to court after it found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Grounds mainly related to Gauci’s evidence.
In approving a new appeal, the Commission had found “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House took place on 7 December 1988” as Gauci had claimed.
Although it had been proven that al-Megrahi had been in Malta on several occasions in the month in question, it had determined that 7 December 1988 was the only date on which he would have had the opportunity to make the purchases from Mary’s House.
New evidence given to the Commission concerned the date on which Christmas lights had been turned on in Tower Road, Sliema near Mary’s House. Taken together with Gauci’s evidence at the trial and the contents of his police statements, the date indicates that the purchase of the incriminating items had taken place before 6 December 1988 – when no evidence had been presented at trial to the effect that the al-Megrahi was in Malta before the date.
Yet more new evidence given to the Commission indicated Gauci, four days before the identification parade at which he picked out al-Megrahi, had seen a photograph of al-Megrahi in a magazine article linking him to the bombing.
The Commission found that Mr Gauci’s exposure to the photograph, so close to the date of the identity parade, “undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself”.
Thursday 25 February 2016
Yet more prosecution non-disclosure alleged
Gauci’s ‘friend’ is new link in Lockerbie saga
Defence team alleges Gauci brothers pocketed US reward for testimony
The defence team of Abdul Basset Ali al-Megrahi, who was found guilty of the Lockerbie bombing, is claiming the evidence of a friend of star witness Tony Gauci was never presented at the trial because it could have undermined the prosecution’s case.
Al-Megrahi, 56, a former intelligence officer at the Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta, was accused and found guilty of planting the bomb inside a suitcase that exploded on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, mainly on the strength of the testimony of Tony Gauci.
The Maltese shopkeeper claimed it was Megrahi who bought the clothes from his shop, Mary’s House in Tower Road, that were later found wrapped around the bomb in the suitcase.
But Maggie Scott QC has told the High Court in Edinburgh that evidence given by a friend of Gauci’s was never presented in the trial because it would have weakened the case against al-Megrahi, who was found guilty in 2001.
Al-Megrahi, who is suffering from terminal cancer, is appealing a life sentence after winning a retrial by the Scottish Criminal Case Review Board.
Scott said that David Wright, a friend of Tony Gauci, came forward to police in September 1989 and gave a statement to officers in England in December that year.
Scott said that Wright gave a “remarkably” similar description of a sale made at Gauci’s shop in Malta to the one used to implicate al-Megrahi.
Details of his statement, and whether it contradicted Mr Gauci’s evidence, had never been presented at the trial and had not been seen by the defence team.
“Mr Wright gives statements to police in England saying he was a friend of Mr Gauci and that he witnessed a transaction at Mr Gauci’s shop which bears remarkable resemblance to the sale to two men which Mr Gauci described,” Scott said.
She said his statement could have undermined Gauci’s testimony and that she wanted any documents relating to Wright to be produced.
Scott also asked the Crown to hand over any documents with reference to Gauci showing interest in a financial reward. She claims Gauci and his brother pocketed $2 million and $1 million by the US authorities, although the claim has never been verified.
Al-Megrahi’s lawyers claim they have evidence that Scottish detectives investigating the bombing recommended that Gauci, a shopkeeper from Malta, be given the payment after the case ended.
A delegation from the Scottish Crown is now expected in Malta to request permission to view the sensitive documents which al-Megrahi’s defence lawyers believe will help free their client.
Al-Megrahi was found guilty of the bombing, which killed all 259 people on board, at a trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, held under Scots law.
Although he lost a previous appeal against his conviction in 2002, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case back to court in June 2007. The commission found six grounds that may have constituted a miscarriage of justice.
Libya has paid out over $3.2 billion to the families of victims of the bombing.
Sunday 10 May 2009
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.]
Sunday 10 May 2015
"The Lockerbie judges got it wrong, they simply got it wrong"
[The following are excerpts from two articles published in the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times on this date in 2009:]
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.
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". (...)
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 Westminster 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)