Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Al Megrahi has always denied responsibility for Lockerbie

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 November 2008
ABDELBASET Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi has consistently denied being responsible for the worst mass murder in British legal history.
The Libyan intelligence agent was convicted in 2001 of killing 270 people in the Lockerbie bombing.

Former Libyan Airlines security steward Al Megrahi, 56, was first indicted for the outrage in 1991 after a lengthy investigation by UK and US polic
e forces.

He was accused along with fellow Libyan Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
Al Megrahi had spent years on the FBI's "most wanted" list, with US detectives claiming his airline work was cover for a role with the Libyan Secret Service.

After the formal accusation, there followed years of lengthy diplomatic bargaining with Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi before the pair were handed over for trial.

It took the intervention of South African president Nelson Mandela before the Libyan authorities agreed to transfer the men to a court in a neutral country.

Al Megrahi and Fhimah eventually stood trial in 2000, conducted under Scots law at a specially convened court at Camp Zeist in The Netherlands.

It was one of the most complex trials yet staged, involving 84 days of evidence from 230 witnesses, lasting nearly seven months and costing an estimated £75 million.

During the proceedings, married Al Megrahi was watched by his then teenage son and daughter, who were at the front of the public gallery separated by a glass wall.

Trial judges were convinced by prosecutors that he had bought clothes from a shop in Malta which were packed around the bomb before it was placed on board the plane on the Mediterranean island.

Al Megrahi was eventually sentenced to 27 years, while his co-accused was cleared.

In an interview published shortly after his conviction, he denied he was responsible for the bombing.

He told Arabic daily Asharq Al-Aswat: "God is my witness that I am innocent.

"I have never committed any crime and I have no connection to this issue.

"I swear to God that I have never seen any suitcase, nor did I put any suitcase (on the plane)."

Al Megrahi first arrived on Scottish soil in 2002 after transferring from his cell in The Netherlands and was placed in Barlinnie prison in Glasgow.

He is currently locked up in HMP Greenock.

A first appeal by Al Megrahi against his conviction was rejected in March 2002.

His lawyers then applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) to re-examine his case.

He was given a fresh chance to clear his name in June last year when the SCCRC referred his case back to appeal judges for a second time.

The review body said there were six grounds – some put forward by the defence, and others resulting from its own investigations – where it believed a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.

In October 2008 Al Megrahi won a legal victory in the latest stage of his bid to have his conviction overturned.

Judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh ruled that the Libyan's appeal could have a wide-ranging focus, looking beyond the issues raised by the SCCRC when it suggested he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

The decision came after Al Megrahi's lawyers lodged full grounds of appeal earlier this year and argued that the full appeal should include all the points pertinent to the case.

Al Megrahi has had a string of health problems in recent years.
In July 2003 he was taken from his cell at Barlinnie to the city's Royal Infirmary after complaining of stomach pains.

He returned to the jail the same day after undergoing tests for a suspected stomach ulcer.

In September 2008, Al Megrahi he was taken from HMP Greenock to the Inverclyde Royal Hospital for tests.

The following month it was confirmed that he had been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer which had spread to other parts of his body and was at an advanced stage.

After the diagnosis, he applied to the High Court in Edinburgh to be freed pending the outcome of his appeal hearing, which is due to take place next year.

His defence team argued there was a "compelling case" for releasing the cancer-stricken Libyan.

But prosecutors argued the gravity of the offence meant he should remain in jail.

Despite the devastating diagnosis, Al Megrahi remained determined to carry on the fight to clear his name.

Today he was told that fight will have to continue from behind bars.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 November 2008 11:23 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Lockerbie
 
1

timer,

Zurich 14/11/2008 16:39:21

The Scottish PanAm 103-Indication Process was based on falsified and manipulated evidence

The circumstantial evidence used to implicate Libya and his official Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi in the Lockerbie bombing was a FAKE!
It is high time that the second delayed appeal brings light into this clear and impertinent miscarriage of justice.

More informtion on: www.lockerbie.ch

by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland


2

bamfordma,

USA 14/11/2008 18:37:53
for a partial list of crimes committed by FBI agents over 1500 pages long see
http://www.campusactivism.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=29
3

Kipling,

15/11/2008 00:02:48
Any judge with the name of Hamilton is going to try to get those before him to swing: 'a mill(s)ton(e) round the neck, as the saying goes.
4

Bert Kwok,

15/11/2008 10:28:19
The timer that was so crucial in evidence presented to court needs to be inspected again.
Under Scottish law can this previous evidence be called on again?
If Mr Lumpert is now telling the truth about the timer then surely an electronics engineer can determine whether or not that timer was a none working prototype or not?
I do not have a theory about who or which nation is guilty of the 270 murders though it does seem that Iran had a motive after the Vincennes incident, maybe, maybe not.
However the case being heard is to decide on whether or not a jailed man is innocent of the crime and I see no quality reportage on this case.
Was the timer unit the same one allegedly "stolen" from Lumperts employer? Can it be determined if it was ever a working unit?
Did the Lybians sacrifice Al Megrahi to stop the Americans from further strangling their economy?
This has to be one of the most bizarre cases in British legal history if we all find out that Al Megrahi is (was) innocent.
5

Bert Kwok,

15/11/2008 10:48:36
It seems the fragments of the timer would not confirm whether it was ever a working unit. The photographs of it show it to be very small pieces of the total unit, as evidence for prosecution or defence it just says I am part of a destroyed MST-13 timer made by MEBO AG.
What Edwin Bollier claims about his viewing of the evidence in Dumfries then later at the camp zeist trial is astounding if his recollection is correct.
He claims that when he asked to view the board pieces in Dumfries the brown fibreglass was easily recognisable but when presented as evidence at trial the parts were "practically carbonised".
Bollier is 71 and his company has long since died so what does he have to gain from all this. There seems to be no media glory or money grubbing tour in it for him and why does he defend someone who many would like to rip to pieces?
6

Bert Kwok,

15/11/2008 11:03:33
Regarding the circuit boards. Mr Bollier says that the production units all had green fibreglass PCB`s and he states that the brown pieces he was shown in Scotland were from a prototype.
In court the prosecution claimed that the unit was purchased with a batch of other timers by Libya. So where did the brown PCB fragments come from? Are they Mr Lumperts purloined timer or not?
I am curious to know if Mr Bollier had a personal theory as to how the brown PCB fragments found there way into police evidence bags at the time of the investigation.
He must have been rather shocked. I would have been. Did he ask the most obvious employees (Mr Lumpert working on prototype models for instance) at the time? I think you would have been shocked if you owned a small company and some of the more rare items of your inventory (not even items destined for market)found there way into a courtroom.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.