Tuesday, 22 May 2012


Megrahi is dead. There are those who rejoiced at that news.

I did not.

I've never thought that he was guilty. I've always been of the opinion that they needed a scapegoat; The public demanded that they find someone to pin it on. But they didn't have anyone, so they fitted someone up.

Having taken the opportunity to use his death to reiterate his entirely unwanted, and irrelevant opinion that Megrahi should never have been released, Cameron has made it clear that he wishes there to be no further investigation into the matter, which immediately tells me that there is something that he wants to hide...

The other day I read a piece on Wings Over Scotland, written by a sometime commentator on Munguin's Republic, Doug Daniel. He was deeply incensed that Lamont had taken it upon herself to apologise on behalf of Scotland to god knows who... the world possibly... for Megrahi's release. Given that she was elected by around 0.2% of the population of Scotland, and that her party was given the mother and father of kickings, it is some leap of faith for her to believe that she speaks for Scotland.

Anyway, I digress. One of the commentators on there, Morag, wrote this post, which I think more or less sums up all the things I knew or felt...much better than I would have. With her permission I post it here.

Many have said that Megrahi was “probably involved in some way”, but nobody has ever been able to produce any evidence other than what was presented in court.  What was presented in court showed that he was catching a plane from Malta to Tripoli on the morning of 21st December 1988, and was in Tripoli at the time the evidence (presented in court) showed the bomb suitcase to have been smuggled into the baggage container waiting at Heathrow airport.

The court chose to go with the fairy-story dreamed up by the investigators that the bomb suitcase had somehow been rendered invisible and levitated on board an Air Malta flight, despite months and indeed years of intensive investigation failing to find any evidence at all that this had happened – or even that it could have happened.  They simply ignored the concrete evidence from witnesses at Heathrow that the security there was abysmal, and one witness in particular who actually saw the suitcase in question in the container before the feeder flight allegedly carrying the “suitcase from Malta” had landed.
Thus they reasoned that Megrahi had been present when this magical deed was done, thus he must somehow have been involved in it.  Why?  Because he bought the clothes packed in the suitcase with the bomb.
But hang on, the evidence that he was the person who bought these clothes was beyond tenuous (and later proved to have been linked to a $3 million bribe to the clothes sellers).  So why did the judges decide this tenuous “resemblance” haltingly attested to by Tony Gauci was enough to say Megrahi was definitely the purchaser?  Why, because he was at the airport when the bomb was smuggled on board the Air Malta flight!
You couldn’t make it up.
Megrahi didn’t buy those clothes.  The man who bought the clothes was about 50 years old, dark-skinned, heavily-built and over six feet tall (Tony’s original description before the cops got to work on him).  Megrahi is 5′ 8″, light-skinned, of normal build, and was 36 years old on the date in question.  And he wasn’t even on Malta that day, either.
Megrahi was in Tripoli at 4pm on 21st December 1988, the time John Bedford went for his tea break at Heathrow, after which he returned to find an extra suitcase in the baggage container he was loading for Pan Am 103, a suitcase perfectly matching the description of the one that blew apart because of the bomb inside it, and which did not match the description of any of the luggage that might legitimately have been in that container. That suitcase was within a few inches of the position later determined to be the centre of the explosion, if not actually in that position.

So no, there is no reason at all to suspect Megrahi was “involved in some way”.  He had no other connection to the bombing at all, that is known about.  Since all the people who are in the frame for having something to do with it are connected to various Palestinian terrorist groups, and have no connection at all with Megrahi, it’s nothing but a leap of faith.
I can very much sympathise with those who feel they need someone to blame for the disaster, but one has to go with the evidence.  And there is no evidence that Megrahi was “involved in some way” other than the evidence used against him in court.  And that, looked at rationally, actually provides him with an alibi for the crime.

I think that there should be a full review of the case anhd the evidence that was being prepared for Megrahi's appeal, when it was stopped because of his ill health. I'm sure Mr Salmond or Mr MacAskill have the power to order it. And they have nothing to hide.


  1. Like you I have considerable doubts as to whether Megrahi was guilty or not. I suspect he was just convenient to Gaddafi's rehabilitation in the West as an ally in the war against terror, which looking at the Arab spring and the fall of various governments who at least kept a lid on terrorism to some extent now looks like an utter failure.
    I suspect we'll only know the truth when the papers are finally released to the public, probably when all those involved are dead and gone.

  2. I have proved that he didn't do it, and the only sensible way by proving who did. I can summarise my claim in a single sentence though I have written much more on the matter, freely available on the web.

    The bombing of Pam Am 103 was no more than the agreed revenge destruction for the provanbly deliberate shooting down of IR655, the Iranian Airbus on 3rd July 1988, designed to secure the election of practically unelectable president, HW Bush in a khaki election and close down Reagan's wayward I/C foreign policy.

  3. QM. There was an appeal being prepared with presumably new evidence (although the old evidence was, in truth, enough to clear him).

    Given the original prognosis that a cancer like his would kill within three months with the treatment available to him in Scotland, given that he could not be released on compassionate grounds while an appeal was pending, and that such an appeal would have taken far longer than his life was likely to last, he abandoned it.

    Mr Cameron does not want the details of the new evidence made public. This tells me something in the new evidence will show that it was a fit up between the UK government (which at that time ran Scotland's legal system from London) and the CIA or Secretary of State, or even the president.

    If it had been a Scottish government which had fitted the guy up, then I imagine that Cameron would still be warbling on about transparency, but, given that it was a Tory government, he seems to be in favour of opaqueness!!

    I suspect that, as law in Scotland is a matter for Scotland only, Mr Salmond may be able to, with the permission of his family, issue the information contained in the appeal.

    I wish he would. not to spite Cameron or Thatcher, but so that we can find out who really blew up that plane.

  4. Charles. Hi, and welcome to Munguin's Republic.

    Yes, although I would say it isn't proof, if would seem to me that if you have just blown up an airline belonging to Iran, it wouldn't be unreasonable, given the state of enmity between Iran and the USA that Iran would have retaliated thus.

    It seems odd then, that despite the death of all these Iranians on a scheduled flight, which went 3 times a week at that very hour, and the subsequent promotion of the person who ordered the massacre, Iran has never retaliated.

    Almost completely unbelievable...

  5. Can I draw your attention to the new post on Wings over Scotland... which you may find interesting:


  6. He should have perished alone, in the utmost pain in a grimy Scottish cell. In isolation, without family being permitted.

    But the SNP chose to piss on the graves of his victims.

  7. I got a bit of a shock there when I checked Google Reader just now to see my fizzog plastered on your blog!

    The more I read about the Megrahi case, the more convinced I am of his innocence. I always knew it was a dodgy conviction and that fine people such as the late investigative journalist Paul Foot had exposed problems with the conviction, but it wasn't until recently that I realised just how utterly bizarre it was that he was even standing trial, never mind being found guilty of the bombing.

    Dean, it's a shame there are so many people who think similar sentiments to those you're espousing. It just makes it more necessary that the truth is unearthed once and for all. I must admit, I'm puzzled as to how you can read Tris' post here, including the lucid remarks from Morag, and still have such absolute faith in Megrahi's guilt.

  8. Frankly Dean,your comment above shows you to be an extremely sick and twisted individual!

  9. Dea. I'm disappointed at your remark. I thought better of you, particularly considering your claim to be a Christian, for whom forgiveness is supposed to be a founding tenet.

    Even supposing the man was guilty, which seems highly unlikely, Jesus would have been inclined to forgiveness, would he not?

    If he was guilty, we certainly need to know what it is that the judges were allowed to know, that flies in the face of the evidence that we have heard.

  10. Ah Doug... I admit, I put you pic at the top as a draw to boost my readership. There has been a flurry of activity not see since I mentioned Willie and Kate Middleton...

    I agree with you. When you read all the faults in the evidence, you wonder what parallel universe Zeist was in.

    Pity I couldn't have got the kilt in... that would have been worth another couple of hundred hits!

  11. I think, pictish beastie, that it's sad that a Scotsman would write that.

    I wonder how he feels about all the other people who have been treated the same under English law... General Pinochet comes to mind. It may be that the people he killed were mere Chilians, and not Scots or Americans... but to my way of thinking, Mrs Thatcher's dear friend was a murdering bastard... and there's no doubt...unlike Mr Megrahi.

    The UK government had no problem with letting him off the hook because he had a sore back...then there's Saunders, the thieving git, and that train robber Biggs...

    Only wrong when the SNP does it.

  12. Dean, I'm equally surprised and disappointed by your post.

  13. Um! Deano's inner tory seems to have got the better of him.

    I Like Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill am in no doubt he had a fair Scottish trial under Scottish justice and was found fairly guilty....

    any on who questions the trials result can only be condidered as deeply deeply unscottish

  14. Perhaps Dean’s new leader Johann Lamont can, as is her want, speak on Scotland’s behalf and join with the SNP (and indeed almost everybody that is not American or elected) in urging the English Government to instigate a full enquiry. Fat chance!!

  15. It is possible, John, that Dean had enjoyed a little of the water of life before writing that...

  16. LOL Niko... very good....very very good.

    You're so funny sometimes.


  17. Munguin: I really don't understand why we have to ask Westminster's permission to publish the new evidence. After all, I managed to have a cup of coffee without asking someone in London only this very afternoon, and the world hasn't ended. Out justice system; our rules.

    What the hell is it to do with the bad tempered posh boy?

    Talking of Camerfool, did you see that he is off with a plan to get the European economy moving...that will be the European economy which is NOT IN RECESSION. So much easier that plastering about with the UK one which IS and for which he clearly hasn't the proverbial scoobie. I wonder who will listen to him, and likewise I wonder if he can see the irony?

    Or is it just a good way of distracting the average Brit from his own inadequacies?

  18. tris
    LOL well lots of love to you to he he he.

  19. He was found guilty by a court, he is guilty. If he was innocent - we can never know, 'cos the SNP actions meant no appeal could be made.

    Two outcomes, both mean the SNP are guilty.

    Megrahi guilty = SNP let a mass murdering terrorist go home.

    Megrahi innocent = SNP may have denied his chance to clear his name.

  20. Quite apart from what nonsense that is Dean, you wanted him, guilty or not, to rot in a prison cell in utmost pain. That is shameful.

    There can be no appeal, of course, but there can be a review of his case and he can be pardoned posthumously if new evidence has come to light. Presumably new evidence has indeed come to light, otherwise he would not have been given leave to appeal for a second time.

    It's happened to other people when new evidence has come to light.

    Cameron doesn't want that to happen, for some strange reason, given that he wants transparency in everything. There are many suspicious things about the original bombing, which might implicate the UK government of the time, a Tory one, and many inexplicable things about the trial and the subsequent appeal (including a UN observer statement which spoke of "spectacular miscarriage of justice" (Dr Hans Kochler), something that was by then the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but in the hands of Labour, controlled by London, which in turn was controlled by Washington (Blair was putty in Bush's hands).

    So probably we will never know. I can't see why Salmond doesn't just allow the grounds for appeal to be published or order a judicial review.

    Maybe what we would be allowed to discover is just too momentous, and he has been sworn to secrecy as a privy councillor.

    Truth is that until we know we will just assume that, as usual we are being lied to by a bunch of stinking politicians sucking up to America in the hopes that they will be allowed to continue playing with the big boys.... and by a corrupt judiciary, who were happy with a spectacular miscarriage of justice.

    if that means that Scottish law is rotten...so be it..

  21. Dean does not belive in compassion

    That quality that makes us better than terrorists, murderers and thieves

    Given Dean's history, perhapshe does not consider himself better than terrorists, murders and thieves

  22. Iran/ Syria were the main suspects but then we needed Syria for our attack on Iraq so had to get them back onside.
    Cue planting of timer device / bribing of the village idiot in Malta and blaming Libya.
    Libya take the wrap knowing that it would get the sanctions lifted. And heck the chances of Megrahi and his fellow conspirator getting found guilty were ludicrous with no evidence.
    Cue millions in bribes and fake evidence and ruined careers of attempted whistleblower.
    All sad but that's how the world works. Nothing personal. Just business.

  23. How sad that Dean seems to have fully embraced his new party’s irrational and at times rabid dislike of the SNP. No matter what it is that the SNP proposes Scottish Labour seem to go into auto-pilot and rubbish it or try to claim it’s their policy all along. It’s a shame that their newer members seem intent on embracing this ethos with gusto. That means that we will never get the consensus politics that they like to claim is what they want, even when the reactionary dinosaurs are dead or booted out.

    It seems that the independence issue is such a monumental bar that they would rather jump into bed with associates at the other ideological pole from themselves than cooperate with the other social democratic party in the political lexicon, thus giving a vast majority of electors what they want. And let’s face it what has independence from the UK got to do with child care in Stirling, or street cleaning in Aberdeen? Are they expecting Dundee and Angus to instantly declare UDI from the UK and put things like bin collection, schools, roads and social work on a back burner?

  24. Anon: That's exactly the difference. Terrorists want what they want, and if that means innocent people suffering... tant pis!

    Rule of law is supposed to only want to punish the guilty.

    I can understand the terrorists mind in so much as Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, or the old PLO were terrorists. if you have authority that simple won't listen to your concerns, and there is no democratic way of dealing with your grievance. But the one thing that stops my sympathy (even for them) is the way that they kill indiscriminately.

  25. LOL Niko... erm thanks, I think :)

  26. That's a very good summation of the situation, Monty. We shouldn't, of course, be in the least surprised at the chicanery. It was ever thus.

    We used to do a lot of it by marrying off our princesses... but they aren't much of a catch these days I guess... in any way!

  27. Two points Munguin. As far as local politics is concerned, there should be no bar to anyone working with anyone in my opinion.

    The job of the local council is to fix the roads, run the libraries, empty the bins, make sure there are houses.... etc, etc.

    They are not elected to get involved in the intricacies of national/international politics. If they remembered these things, perhaps the potholes would be a little less severe.

    And yes, whatever the government says, the opposition opposes. If Alex comments in some way on the surprisingly nice weather we are having, I wouldn't be surprised to hear Lamont say that it's terrible weather, and no doubt brought about by mother nature being unsettled by the uncertainty of Scotland's future.

    Why Labour (which would normally be fighting hard for decency and clarity about such a case with more holes in it than all the Gruyère in Switzerland, and which, as a party was founded on the principle of a fair deal for the underdog) is so determined that we were wrong to follow the dictates of Scots Law (and English law for that matter)and release a dying man, can partly be blamed on that, but partly, I suspect, on the Blair administration's dealings with the Bush administration at the time of the trial...

    This could be embarrassing for Labour (probably also for the Tories, who allowed a strange amount of American activity on the night and days following the explosion, excluding Scottish police from the scene), for Britain, and unfortunately, for Scotland. So the more that it is hushed up, the better, or so say the politicians.


  28. Funny you should compare the effect of my photo to that of mentioning Kate & Wills, tris - it just so happens one of my (many) nicknames over the years has been "King Doug".

    Perhaps I could be Scotland's first democratically-elected King?

  29. A thoughtful piece on the inconclusive evidence and general bad smell of the Lockerbie conviction. not sure why it needed a dig at Lamont in there but i genuinely haven;t seen the case summed up as well anywhere else, well done.

  30. Er yeah Doug.. Perhaps you could.

    But, I'd vote for you, so that's a start :)

  31. Thanks Anon... :)

    The dig at Lamont is that she decided that it was her duty, having been elected by fewer than 50% of the active voters in her constituency, to apologise to the world on behalf of all Scots.

    Doug's original piece, which inspired some of the excellent arguments made by Morag, and later commentators on here, was a letter of complaint to Lamont, asking her to not speak for him. I concur...she doesn't speak for me either. In fact I'm proud, not ashamed of what we did, and I expect that she complains more out of her incessant need to oppose anything that the government does, rather than any real feeling of revulsion at the deed.