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.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article