Lockerbie : Al Megrahi says public inquiry must take place into bombing of Pan Am Flight 103

THE HERALD newspaper in an exclusive interview with Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in December 1988 reveals today that Mr Megrahi supports calls for a full inquiry into the terrorist attack over 20 years ago that claimed 270 lives.

We at Scottish Law Reporter support the call for a far reaching, fully independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case.

The Herald newspaper reports :

The truth never dies

EXCLUSIVE: Megrahi demands Lockerbie inquiry

By Ian Ferguson and Lucy Adams in Tripoli

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing has backed demands for a far-reaching public inquiry into the atrocity, saying the international community owes that to the families of the 270 victims.

In his first full-length interview since being released last week, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi told The Herald: "We all want to know the truth. The truth never dies."

Speaking from a hospital bed at his home in Tripoli, Megrahi talked extensively about his 10-year battle with the Scottish legal system and insisted he did not commit the worst terrorist act on mainland Britain.

The revelation comes in the wake of The Herald's exclusive interview with the son of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Saif al Islam al Gaddafi claimed the proposed prisoner transfer deal with Britain had targeted Megrahi and was linked to talks on trade and oil, but that his release on compassionate grounds was completed unrelated to commerce.

Megrahi, who has terminal prostate cancer, revealed he dropped his appeal against the conviction because he would not live to see its outcome and was desperate to return to his family. "It is all about my family," he said. "People have said there was pressure from the Libyan authorities or Scottish authorities, but it wasn't anything like this."

Instead, he put his faith in an appeal for compassion and said he was impressed by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill during their meeting at Greenock Prison. "I thought he was a very decent man and he gave me a chance to say what I wanted and to express myself. He gave me the chance to make a presentation to him and he was very polite."

Megrahi is still determined to clear his name, partly through an autobiography, and also backs a public inquiry. Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora in the tragedy, has already called for such an investigation, but the UK Government seems firmly opposed.

"I support the issue of a public inquiry if it can be agreed. In my view, it is unfair to the victim's families that this has not been heard. It would help them to know the truth. As I said, the truth never dies.

"If the UK guaranteed it, I would be very supportive. I would want to help Dr Swire and the others with the documents I hold."

However, he added during an hour-long interview: "My feeling is that the UK Government will avoid a public inquiry because it would be a headache for them and the Americans and it would show how much the Americans have been involved and it would also cost them a lot of money which they may not want to spend because of the recession."

Megrahi was vitriolic about the Scottish police and legal system. "I was supposed to receive a fair trial and I was supposed to be subject to fair procedure. From day one of the trial there were delays and delays from the Crown Office. "The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission found at least six grounds of appeal and said there were six grounds on which it may have been a miscarriage of justice.

"From that point we asked the Crown for more documents and more papers. We received only some of them and they were still redacted. Most of the pages were black and I think this is shameful. They were supposed to give us everything."

Referring to the revelation seven years ago that some of the police notebooks recording the aftermath of the tragedy had been destroyed, Megrahi said: "It is very strange that the police forces that dealt with the case - and there were more than 400 officers - it is very strange that many of their notebooks went missing.

When one officer was asked about a notebook, he said it was destroyed. I find this very strange. Surely to destroy the notebooks of so many people is a decision that someone must have been made? This is not fair and is a big question mark about the case."

He said his priority now is to spend time with his five children, the youngest of whom is still of primary school age. "It was always my dream to come back to my family. It was in my prayers every day and when I received the diagnosis, even more so."

A new opinion poll for BBC Scotland has revealed most Scots think Megrahi should have died in jail. It also suggested more than two-thirds of Scots think Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been damaged by the release.

An even bigger majority believe it has had a detrimental effect on the Scottish Government, although more than half of those interviewed thought Mr MacAskill's should not resign. The poll findings emerged as opposition leaders at Westminster pledged to pursue Mr Brown because of his continuing silence.

Tory leader David Cameron said the Prime Minister had to be honest about any dealings with the Libyan government, while Nick Clegg, of the LibDems, demanded that he "come clean".

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW IN TODAY'S HERALD NEWSPAPER OR ONLINE HERE ...

Lockerbie : Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill explains decision on Al Megrahi release to Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Parliament at Holyrood in Edinburgh today heard a statement from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill explaining his decision to release on compassionate grounds, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in December 1988.

Amidst some self congratulatory questions from Mr MacAskill’s colleagues in the Scottish National Party, some half decent questions & points from a few MSPs and, admittedly some ludicrous suggestions from members of the opposition that Mr Al Megrahi could have been released to a ‘hospice’, party political point scoring did inevitably take over several times to an otherwise lacklustre parliamentary session on possibly Alex Salmond’s administration’s most important policy decision to-date.

Observers to the Lockerbie case in general are left with little doubt that if there is to be an inquiry into the Lockerbie case and the trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, such inquiries will have to be conducted internationally as obviously there is little hope of effective debate, transparency or further investigation in Scotland (don’t forget that next week Holyrood has another bite at the Lockerbie case, so we can all look forward to a repeat of today’s non event – Ed)

Today’s statement by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to the Scottish Parliament & questions asked by various MSPs :

Lockerbie : Law Society of Scotland President accuses US Government of bullying Scotland over Al Megrahi release

As quoted in today’s session of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh by Michael Matheson MSP, the Law Society of Scotland supported the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988

Here follows an interview with the President of the Law Society of Scotland, Ian ‘73k’ Smart, who talks about the release on compassionate grounds, while also accusing the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, of being a bully in her opinions expressed to the Scottish Government over Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill’s consideration over the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

Interestingly, while Ian Smart and the Law Society may well have supported the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, they are a little less supportive of a full independent inquiry, which would probably end up damaging many institutions of Scots Law (including the biggest bully of them all, the Law Society of Scotland itself - Ed)

Law Society President Ian Smart speaks on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, accuses US of bullying …

FBI Chief Mueller accuses Scots Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill of ‘making a mockery of the rule of law’ over Lockerbie prisoner release

The Director of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller, III has accused Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, of ”making a mockery of the rule of law” in his decision to release on compassionate grounds, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the man convicted under Scots Law for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.

Director Mueller goes on in his letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, to heavily criticise him for his reasoning and decision making process over releasing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, claiming the Justice Secretary did not take the views of US prosecutors and law enforcement agencies over his plan to release Al Megrahi. Director Mueller then goes onto claim that Kenny MacAskill’s actions “give comfort to terrorists around the world”.

However, while the US administration is officially critical of the decision to release Al Megrahi from Greenock Prison home to Libya on compassionate grounds, the decision itself will probably help western companies who are now doing big business in Libya, reports the Sunday Herald, here : Megrahi: The contracts

Letter from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill :

Dear Mr. Secretary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Robert S. Mueller, III

Director

UN Observer Dr Koechler on Lockerbie Bomber release : ‘The case is not closed’

Dr Hans Koechler, the United Nations observer at the Lockerbie Trial has issued the following Press Release, concluding the case of the now released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, who was convicted in 2001 under Scots Law for the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 is very far from closed.

Release of the Lockerbie prisoner: the case is not closed

Statement by Dr. Hans Koechler, International Observer, appointed by the United Nations, at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands

Vienna, 21 August 2009

P/RE/21831c-is

Dr. Hans Koechler has been appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie Trial in the Netherlands. In two analytical reports, submitted to the United Nations in 2001 and 2002, about the trial and first appeal he had suspected a miscarriage of justice. Commenting on yesterday's release on compassionate grounds of the only person convicted in the Lockerbie case, the Libyan citizen Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, Dr. Koechler clarified certain important points in interviews for Austrian and international media.

Domestic and international legal aspects of the release

The decision by Scotland’s Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, was in conformity with Scots law and did not violate any international obligation of the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding other declarations, release on the basis of the recently ratified prisoner transfer agreement between the Libyan Jamahiriya and the United Kingdom would have violated the terms of an agreement concluded in 1991 (!) between the United Kingdom and the United States according to which the full sentence of any person convicted by the Scottish Court in the Netherlands would be served in a Scottish prison. Dr. Koechler who had listened to the reading of Mr. MacAskill’s statement, said that he is at a loss to explain how the Scottish authorities can say that they had no specific information on this legal matter because the UK authorities did not provide it to them. If he would have checked relevant documents in the public domain, he could have found – in the official records of the House of Commons – the text of a statement made by the then Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, the late Robin Cook, on 31 January 2001. Because of the importance of the issue in legal and political terms the respective part of the statement is reproduced below:

"I can give the right hon. Gentleman and the House an absolute assurance that there will be no deal with the Libyan Government on the sentence of Mr. Al Megrahi. I do not believe that any Scottish court would wear such a deal, even if we remotely contemplated striking one. As part of the terms of the agreement in 1991, it was agreed that the full sentence would be served in a Scottish prison. At that stage, we rejected the proposal that the person responsible might be sent to a prison in a third country. The United Nations will have access to his prison, because we have nothing to hide or to fear about the standard of Scottish prisons. I suspect that they will be better than those of Libyan prisons."

This was the Foreign Secretary’s answer to the following question by the Hon. Francis Maude, MP:

"Will the Government undertake that Al Megrahi will neither be released early as part of some deal with Libya, nor permitted to serve part of his sentence in Libya?"

In view of this official statement, made by the British Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, it is crystal-clear that only release on compassionate grounds was in conformity with the United Kingdom’s international obligations - as Dr. Koechler had already stated on 5 August 2009 in an interview for the BBC London.

Dropping of the appeal by the convict

In an op-ed article for The Independent (London), Dr. Koechler has expressed serious doubts about the decision by Mr. Al Megrahi to withdraw his (second) appeal. His decision may have been made under duress and would thus be legally questionable, he said. According to Scots law, the termination of the ongoing appeal was not in any way required for compassionate release to be granted. The Scottish Justice Secretary will have to clarify vis-à-vis the Scottish, British and international public the exact circumstances under which the appeal was dropped. According to reports, Mr. Al Megrahi’s request was lodged through his defence team on 12 August 2009, in close proximity to the date of his release (20 August 2009) and just a few days after his meeting with the Justice Secretary. How are these coincidences to be explained?

It should have been obvious to the Scottish authorities that - in a case where an act international terrorism is suspected - it would be in the public interest of the country that has jurisdiction to continue with criminal proceedings and to exhaust all legal means to establish the truth about the incident. Why did the authorities satisfy themselves to deal with the question of criminal responsibility of two, later only one, suspect, and why did they accept the abrupt ending of the ongoing appeal of the only person convicted?

Omission by Scotland's Justice Secretary of any reference to the decision of Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

Mr. MacAskill was right, in political as well as legal terms, in releasing Mr. Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds. However, in yesterday’s statement explaining his decision, he failed the test of statesmanship or judicial expertise. Upon concluding his statement he appeared more like a Prosecutor in a trial, suddenly assuming a vindictive tone and trying to convince the court of the guilt of the indicted, not like the Secretary of Justice who has to make a decision that is not related to the question of guilt or innocence (as is the case with “release on compassionate grounds” according to Scots law).

It is noteworthy that, in his statement, the Justice Secretary did not in any way take note of the fact that - in the years since the trial court's decision on 31 January 2001 - serious doubts have arisen about the guilty verdict and that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) – after four (!) years of painstaking investigations – had stated (in June 2007) that it suspects a miscarriage of justice and had, thus, referred the case back to the appeal court. He did – obviously deliberately – overlook the finding of the SCCRC according to which “there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase [by Mr. Al Megrahi] of the items [clothes] from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.” It does not need special intellectual skills to realize that the entire verdict collapses if there is no proof for the assertion that Mr. Al Megrahi was the person who bought clothes on that particular day in that particular shop in Malta.

In view of the appeal now having been aborted, the work of the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission will have been in vain. The least that is to be expected from the Scottish judicial authorities is that they publish the full report of the Commission. Up to the present moment, not only the full report has not been released into the public domain, several grounds of appeal given by the Commission are being kept secret.

Public inquiry and possible role of the United Nations

As matters stand in Scotland, there may be no further criminal proceedings or investigations. However, establishing the truth about the midair explosion of an airliner and identifying the perpetrators is in the supreme public interest of any polity that is built on the rule of law. The legitimacy of any state is closely connected to a state’s willingness and ability to investigate and prosecute sine ira et studio each and every incident such as that which caused the death of 270 innocent people on the PanAm plane and in Lockerbie, Dr. Koechler said. In an exclusive interview with Al-Jazeera’s Felicity Barr the former UN-appointed observer reiterated his call for a public inquiry to be mandated by the British House of Commons. He further explained that, absent a decision by the House of Commons, the United Nations General Assembly may consider establishing an international commission of inquiry into the Lockerbie incident on the basis of Art. 22 of the UN Charter. Since the United Nations Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, has decided on 12 September 2003 to remove the Lockerbie issue “from the list of matters of which the Security Council is seized,” the General Assembly would undoubtedly have authority to deal with the issue.

About alternative theories

In all conversations with media representatives and in an interview, moderated from London and broadcast live on Al-Jazeera TV shortly after Mr. Al-Megrahi’s release, Dr. Koechler has made clear that, as a United Nations-appointed observer as well as a scholar, he does not engage in any speculation about the perpetrators as long as no alternative theory about the incident can be built beyond a reasonable doubt. He added that, if the Scottish judges at Camp Zeist would have respected that criterion, they could not have reached the guilty verdict in the case of Mr. Al Megrahi.

"I saw the trial - and the verdict made no sense" Article by Hans Köchler in The Independent, London

Lockerbie observer mission of the International Progress Organization

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill 'stands by' conviction of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi over Lockerbie bombing despite mounting calls for inquiry

Scotland’s Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill was interviewed by BBC Scotland on his decision to release Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi from Greenock Prison, returning home to Libya late yesterday.

Mr MacAskill. much to the amazement of many, states he stands by the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, despite the numerous inconsistencies in the evidence presented at the Lockerbie Trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands under Scottish Law in 2001.

Noteworthy again is the lack of will on the part of the Justice Secretary to institute an inquiry into the Lockerbie case from the Scottish end .. seemingly putting the onus on Westminster to start the ball rolling. However, since the case was heard under Scots Law, and given law is a devolved issue .. why is there no apparent will on Mr MacAskill’s part to start an inquiry in Scotland ?

We at Scottish Law Reporter support the call for a fully independent inquiry into the Lockerbie case. Sucn an inquiry should of course originate in Scotland, and have international monitoring to ensure full impartiality & accountability to the facts.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill interivewed on the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi Pt 1

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill interivewed on the release of Abdelbaset Al Megrahi Pt 2

The Lockerbie Case which became the cover up that broke trust in Scots Law

More from the Mail on Sunday’s report into the cover up of the Lockerbie case, which, in all its dishonesty, has effectively broke any trust in Scots Law :

Lockerbie : The Fatal Cover Up

By Marcello Mega (Mail on Sunday August 16 2009)

THE wrong man was jailed for the Lockerbie bombing and the real suspect allowed to escape justice to satisfy political motives, a damning investigation can reveal.

The Scottish Mail on Sunday can today pub­lish remarkable details from a report by two leading investigators which throws major doubt on the conviction of Libyan agent Abdel-baset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi.

He is expected to be freed from a Scottish prison this week after serving eight years of a life sentence for the bombing.

The report would have formed the basis of Megrahi's appeal against his conviction, a case which will never be heard after he dropped his legal challenge in return for his early release.

The investigation finds that the man almost certain to have conducted the attack was Mohammed Abu Talb, a convicted Palestinian terrorist with the backing, finance, equipment and contacts to have carried out the atrocity.

It also places Talb at the scene where parts of the suitcase bomb were bought - and in Britain when it exploded over Lockerbie.

But instead of pursuing Talb and his Iranian backers, the report claims the American and British manhunt was ordered to find a link to' Libya and its leader, Colonel Gaddafi.

In a damning verdict on the case, the investi­gators conclude: 'We are convinced Mr….

'Megrahi's conviction was based on flawed evidence'

….Megrahi's conviction was based on fundamen­tally flawed evidence. We have never seen a criminal investigation in which there has been such a persistent disregard of an alternative and far more persuasive theory of the case.

This leads us to believe the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing was directed off-course as a result of government interference.'

Talb, serving a life sentence in Sweden for a fatal bombing campaign in the Eighties, was a key witness in the prosecution case against Megrahi in the Scottish courts, for which he received immunity from prosecution.

However, the investigation on behalf of Megrahi's defence team by a former UK terror chief and a former US prose­cutor who has worked for the British government provides compelling evi­dence that Talb was the bomber. The report reveals that:

· Talb had clothing from the same Maltese shop as that packed in the suitcase that carried the bomb on board Pan Am Flight 103;

· Talb's alibi that he was in Sweden at the time of the bombing was false he was in London meeting other terrorists with an unprimed bomb;

· Talb had bribed a corrupt employee at Heathrow to get a suit­ case through security unchecked;

· Talb was paid $500,000 only four months after the bombing.

Megrahi is expected to fly to Libya after being granted his freedom on compassionate grounds. Officials insist the move followed assurances he has terminal cancer and has only three months to live.

However, it is also understood that a condition of Megrahi's release was that he dropped his appeal, because the UK Government and the Scottish justice system were keen to prevent embarrassing details about the case emerging.

At the centre of the alleged cover-up is evidence that Libya, then a pariah state to the US and Britain, was singled out for responsibility to suit political motives, when in fact the bombing was carried put by Talb on the orders and funding of Iran in revenge for the shooting down of its airliner by a US warship.

The Scottish Mail on Sunday has uncovered much of the evidence that would be a source of embarrassment.

In recent years, we have revealed that critical evidence was manipu­lated and even planted, that the key witness was coached by detectives and rewarded for his ever-changing statements and that recent forensic tests conducted on crucial items of evidence shattered the Crown's case.

Now we have obtained documents which outline evidence that the lead­ing player responsible for taking 270 lives in Lockerbie on December 21, 1988, was not Megrahi but Talb. The report carries weight because of the calibre of those who amassed the evi­dence - Jessica de Grazia, a former senior New York prosecutor who led an investigation for the UK Attorney General's office into the Serious Fraud Office, and Philip Corbett, a former deputy head of Scotland Yard's Anti-Terrorist Branch.

Their access to informed sources in Middle East intelligence gives their report particular authority.

Instructed by Megrahi's defence team after his conviction in January 2001, de Grazia and Corbett placed Talb in key locations in Europe with terrorist leaders in the months prior to the Lockerbie bombing.

Much of the evidence implicating Talb was known to the Crown and defence prior to the trial of Megrahi.

Talb had links to at least two terror groups, in particular the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP-GC) and was a strong suspect.

The PFLP-GC, funded by Iran and led by the Syrian Ahmed Jibril, was the first suspect in the Lockerbie case. A cell based in Europe in 1988 was led by Jibril's deputy, Hafez Dalkamoni, with Talb one of their most trusted lieutenants.

However, despite the belief that Iran was responsible, the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1990 caused a major political shift in the investiga­tion. A secret deal for Allied war-planes to use Iranian airspace to attack Iraq required the US and British governments to stop its pur­suit of the Lockerbie bombers and their Iranian connections. Libya was instead chosen as the prime suspect.

When the focus of the investigation switched, the evidence gathered against Talb and the PFLP-GC was effectively discarded by Scottish and US investigators.

However, de Grazia and Corbett say evidence almost certainly proved an Iranian-backed plot.

Five months before Lockerbie, the American vessel USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian Airbus over the Per­sian Gulf. All 290 people on board perished. Iran vowed vengeance and promised that the skies would run with the blood of Americans.

Three months later, in October 1988, German secret police raided a flat in Germany where Dalkamoni's cell was making Semtex bombs con­tained in Toshiba radio-cassettes designed to bring down aircraft, identical to the device used in the Lockerbie attack two months later.

Although the Germans seized five devices, the bombmaker Marwan….

'Disregard of a more persuasive theory'

…..Khreesat told them a sixth had been removed by Dalkamoni.

De Grazia and Corbett's investiga­tion reveals that Dalkamoni and Talb had been friends since 1980 and met, including in Malta, in the weeks before the bombing. De Grazia was also told by intelligence sources that 'because of his abilities, Talb was given Lockerbie to carry out'.

The investigation says the missing bomb from Germany was probably taken to Malta for safe-keeping before being packed, unprimed, by Talb before its journey to London.

A Maltese connection had also been a focal point of the prosecution's case during Megrahi's trial. They argued that shopkeeper Tony Gauci identified Megrahi as the buyer of clothes later packed in the bomb case. However, de Grazia and Corbett say that Gauci also identified Talb as the man who 'most resembled' the buyer.

Although Gauci's evidence about Megrahi provided key eyewitness evidence to the prosecution's case, it emerged that the store owner had been given paid holidays to Scotland as well as being coached by investigators in his evidence.

De Grazia and Corbett say Gauci's evidence against Talb would have been just as strong if it had been pursued.

Their report says the most con­clusive link between Talb and the clothing bought from Gauci's shop was the discovery of a cardigan in his flat in Sweden. The cardigan was traced to a manufacturer on the Maltese island of Gozo, a firm that supplied Gauci.

The investigation says, based on their evidence, the plan was to launch the attack from Malta but this was dropped because of security at the island's airport. Talb and his colleagues decided Heathrow's security would be easier to crack.

It emerged after the bombing there had been a security breach at Heathrow when a lock was forced near Pan Am's airside berths. Corbett describes the probe into the breach as 'inade­quate'. Their inquiries uncovered evidence that on an earlier visit to London, Talb bribed an employee to get an unchecked case airside.

Crucially, the report exposes Talb's alibi for December 21. He was not, as he claimed, caring for the children of a relative who was giving birth in a Swedish hospital.

They found that on December 19 he sailed from Sweden to Britain, arriving in London on December 21, the day of the bombing. There he met other terrorists, including bomber Abu Elias and Martin Imandi, who are thought to have been in possession of the device left on Flight 103.

After the bombing, De Grazia and Corbett say more evidence emerges linking Talb and his terror cell to the atrocity. They highlight evidence obtained via ex-CIA agent Robert Baer that the Iranian gov­ernment paid $11 million into a European bank account held by the PFLP-GC two days later. An account held by Talb in Frankfurt was later credited with $500,000.

In their conclusions, De Grazia and Corbett recommend forensic scrutiny of the timer fragment that was the only physical evidence in the case that pointed to Libya. That work showed the fragment had never been near an explosion, shat­tering the case against Megrahi.

The evidence gathered by De Grazia and Corbett would have been the cornerstone of Megrahi's appeal which was expected to have posed a serious challenge to his conviction. However, on Tuesday, as part of the private understand­ing between the dying Megrahi and the Scottish Executive, his lawyers will drop his appeal.

The move will effectively close the chapter on Lockerbie, denying the public the opportunity to hear the full story behind the horror of December 21,1988.

Tam Dalyell writes on the truths about Lockerbie which London & Washington don’t want to hear

This weekend’s Mail on Sunday saw a very interesting article from former Labour MP Tam Dalyell on what many don’t want to hear about the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988.

The Mail on Sunday (Scottish edition) reports :

August 16 2009, The Mail on Sunday (Scottish Edition).

The truth about Lockerbie? That’s the last thing the Americans want the world to know.

By Tam Dalyell Former Labour MP for Linlithgow and former Father of the House of Commons.

WHY have US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her officials' responded to the return of Megrahi with such a volcanic reaction? The answer is straightforward. The last thing that Washington wants is the truth to emerge about the role of the US in the crime of Lockerbie. I understand the grief of those parents, such as Kathleen Flynn and Bert Ammerman, who have appeared on our TV screens to speak about the loss of loved ones. Alas all these years they have been lied to about the cause of that grief.

Not only did Washington not want the awful truth to emerge, but Mrs Thatcher, a few - very few - in the stratosphere of Whitehall and certain officials of the Crown Office in Edinburgh, who owe their subsequent careers to the Lockerbie investigation, were compliant.

It all started in July 1988 with the shooting down by the warship USS Vincennes of an Iranian airliner carrying 290 pilgrims to Mecca - without an apology.

The Iranian minister of the interior at the time was Ali Akbar Mostashemi, who made a public statement that blood would rain down in the form of ten western airliners being blown out of the sky.

Mostashemi was in a position carry out such a threat - he had been the Iranian ambassador in Damascus from 1982 to 1984 and had developed close relations with the terrorist gangs of Beirut and the Bekaa Valley - and in particular terrorist leader Abu Nidal and Ahmed Jibril, the head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command.

Washington was appalled. I believe so appalled and fearful that it entered into a Faustian agreement that, tit-for-tat, one airliner should be sacrificed.

This may seem a dreadful thing for me to say. But consider the facts. A notice went up in the US Embassy in Moscow advising diplomats not to travel with Pan Am back to America for Christmas.

American military personnel were pulled off the plane. A delegation of South

Africans, including foreign minister Pik Botha, were pulled off Pan Am Flight 103 at the last minute.

Places became available. Who took them at the last minute? The students. Jim Swire's daughter, John Mosey's daughter, Martin Cadman's son, Pamela Dix’s brother, other British relatives, many of whom you have seen on television in recent days, and, crucially, 32 students of the University of Syracuse, New York.

If it had become known - it was the interregnum between Ronald Reagan demitting office and George Bush Snr entering the White House - that, in the light of the warning, Washington had pulled VIPs but had allowed Bengt Carlsson, the UN negotiator for Angola whom it didn't like, and the youngsters to travel to their deaths, there would have been an outcry of US public opinion.

No wonder the government of the United States and key officials do not want the world to know what they have done.

If you think that this is fanciful, consider more facts. When the relatives went to see the then UK Transport Secretary, Cecil Parkinson, he told them he did agree that there should be a public inquiry. Going out of the door as they were leaving, as an afterthought he said: 'Just one thing. I must clear permission for a public inquiry with colleagues'. Dr Swire, John Mosey and Pamela Dix, the secretary of the Lockerbie relatives, imagined that it was a mere formality. A fortnight later, sheepishly, Parkinson informed them that colleagues had not agreed. At that time there was only one colleague who could possibly have told Parkinson that he was forbidden to do something in his own department. That was the Prime Minister. Only she could have told Parkinson to withdraw his offer, certainly, in my opinion, knowing the man, given in good faith.

Fast forward 13 years. I was the chairman of the all-party House of Commons group on Latin America. I had hosted Dr Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, between the time that he won the election and formally took control in Bogota. The Colombian ambassador, Victor Ricardo, invited me to dinner at his residence as Dr Uribe wanted to continue the conversations with me.

The South Americans are very formal. A man takes a woman in to dinner. To make up numbers, Ricardo had invited a little old lady, his neighbour. I was mandated to take her in to dinner. The lady was Margaret Thatcher, to whom I hadn't spoken for 17 years since I had been thrown out of the Commons for saying she had told a self-serving fib in relation to the Westland affair.

I told myself to behave. As we were sitting down to dinner, the conversation went like this.

'Margaret, I'm sorry your "head" was injured by that idiot who attacked your sculpture in the Guildhall.'

She replied pleasantly: 'Tam, I'm not sorry for myself, but I am sorry for the sculptor.'

Raising the soup spoon, I ventured: 'Margaret, tell me one thing - why in 800 pages...'

'Have you read my autobiography?' she interrupted, purring with pleasure.

Yes, I have read it very carefully. Why in 800 pages did you not mention Lockerbie once?' Mrs Thatcher replied: 'Because I didn't know what happened and I don't write about things that I don't know about.'

My jaw dropped. 'You don't know. But, quite properly as Prime Minister, you went to Lockerbie and looked into First Officer Captain Wagner's eyes.'

She replied: 'Yes, but I don't know about it and I don't write in my autobiography things I don't know about.' My conclusion is that she had been told by Washington on no account to delve into the circumstances of what really happened that awful night.

Whitehall complied. I acquit the Scottish judges Lord Sutherland, Lord Coulsfield and Lord MacLean at Megrahi's trial of being subject to pressure, though I am mystified as to how they could have arrived at a verdict other than 'Not Guilty' -or at least 'Not Proven'.

As soon as I left the Colombian ambassador's residence, I reflected on the enormity of what Mrs Thatcher had said.

Her relations with Washington were paramount. She implied that she had abandoned her natural and healthy curiosity about public affairs to blind obedience to what the US administration wished. Going along with the Americans was one of her tenets of faith.

On my last visit to Megrahi, in Greenock Prison in November last year, he said to me: 'Of course I am desperate to go back to Tripoli. I want to see my five children growing up. But I want to go back as an innocent man.'

I quite understand the human reasons why, given his likely life expectancy, he is prepared, albeit desperately reluctantly, to abandon the appeal procedure.