As you correctly report (June 18), it was the evidence I heard in the Lockerbie court at Zeist that convinced me that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was not guilty as charged.

As your article reported, I was not alone in this: we have since had the opportunity to attend a number of international legal conferences, where the question of how the court could have reached this verdict on this evidence has been a hot topic. A UN observer at the trial also concluded that the verdict was "incomprehensible" given this evidence. More extreme elements have compared it with a Stalin-era show trial.

In a conference call with Jack Straw (then Foreign Secretary) on the day of the announcement of the upholding of the verdict against Megrahi by the Zeist appeal court, our request that he examine the evidence, rather than delight in the verdict, fell on deaf ears. Certainly, there were strong international political circumstances before the trial at Zeist that may have influenced why the accusations suddenly switched to Libya in 1990, and which must have weighed against America accusing Iran or Syria of involvement.

Be that as it may, we have all witnessed the dire consequences of actions based on the political manipulation of intelligence since then. It does seem to me that if the SCCRC refers the case back, as many believe it will, then it will become vital in due course for Scotland herself to address the question of why this verdict came to be reached in the first place. An inquiry with the power to do this has been denied us by the UK establishment for many years.

Dr Jim Swire, Rowans Corner, Calf Lane, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire.