As matters stand in the aftermath of the latest Lockerbie appeal, the most prominent criticisms of the verdict in the public domain concern two particular chapters of the case. Both of these were carefully examined by the SCCRC. It concluded that they did not merit referral to the Appeal Court.

The timer fragment

The first is the provenance of the timer fragment – known as PT/35(b) – which was a key part of the Crown case at trial. It was discovered by a forensic scientist lodged in a bomb-damaged piece of a shirt which had been in the suitcase containing the bomb when it exploded. The timer fragment was from one of a batch of MST-13 timers manufactured and supplied by the Swiss company MEBO to fulfil an order placed with them by the Libyan secret service. Mr Megrahi had business links with one of the principals of MEBO, a man called Edwin Bollier, and with the Libyan officers who ordered and took delivery of the timers.

On 20th January 2021, Professor Black posted an article written by Steve James which contained allegations that no explanation had been offered (by the prosecution presumably) that evidence concerning the discovery of PT/35(b) in the wreckage of the plane had been doctored. Mr James has overlooked the fact that these allegations, amongst many others concerning PT/35(b), were thoroughly examined by the SCCRC and rejected by them in the 2007 SOR. As a result of the allegations made by the defence lawyers and “especially in light of the speculation that has persisted in the media” the Commission decided to review all aspects of the evidence about MST-13 timers and MEBO. The SCCRC did not believe that a miscarriage of justice had occurred in connection with PT/35(b).

The commission re-visited the issue in their second review. In the press release accompanying the 2020 referral the SCCRC chairman revealed that one of the broad grounds of possible referral considered and rejected by the commission in their second review concerned PT/35(b).

In their book entitled The Lockerbie Bombing – A Father’s Search For Justice (2021), Dr Jim Swire and Peter Biddulph express the opinion that the fragment could not have been from one of the batch which had been supplied by MEBO to Libya and that accordingly the Crown case is fatally flawed. Their analysis is short (under five pages) and highly selective. It omits any reference to the large body of evidence, including scientific evidence, which questions the accuracy of their claims. This is in stark contrast to the detailed analysis carried out by the SCCRC who devoted a whole chapter of the 2020 SOR (90 pages) to the subject, carefully examining the detail of all the pre- and post-trial evidence.

The SCCRC concluded that there is certainly no question that the evidence obtained post-trial (relied on by Dr Swire and Mr Biddulph) may be said to establish that this fragment was not part of one of the timers supplied by MEBO to the Libyans. In his article Mr James asserted that PT/35(b) “has subsequently been proved NOT to be part of a consignment of timers admittedly sold to Libya by Mebo-AG”. In another article by Mr James posted on Professor Black’s blog on 21st January 2021, Mr James said: “The SCCRC did not consider (…) analysis of the metallurgical characteristics of the alleged bomb timer—proving it was not part of a batch sold to Libya…” The SCCRC findings show that Mr James is wrong about both these points.

The suitcase

At the trial, the Crown proved that the suitcase containing the bomb travelled as an unaccompanied item of baggage from Luqa Airport in Malta to Frankfurt. From there it was loaded onto a Pan-Am feeder flight to London and then on to the flight on which the bomb exploded.

At the trial the defence claimed that the bomb was infiltrated onto a plane for the first time at Heathrow and that this put paid to the Crown position that it was dispatched from Malta. The trial court explained their reasons for rejecting the defence case in their written judgement. In the first appeal the Appeal Court again rejected this claim after hearing additional evidence about it.

In his article posted by Professor Black on 21 January 2021 Steve James said: “The SCCRC did not consider……devastating evidence of the bomb suitcase entering the luggage system at Heathrow Airport, London, as grounds for appeal.” He is wrong about that.

In the press release in March 2020 which accompanied their second referral, the SCCRC revealed that they had rejected yet another allegation that the bomb was first infiltrated into the airline luggage chain at Heathrow. According to the SCCRC the allegation was based on “a theory derived from the work of the organisation ‘Justice for Megrahi’”. That theory was largely based on research conducted by Dr Morag Kerr published by her in 2013 in a book entitled Adequately Explained by Stupidity.

Once again the SCCRC carried out a thorough examination of the allegation taking account of all the relevant evidence including information which was not available to Justice for Megrahi. The SCCRC concluded that “…it was not arguable that the Justice for Megrahi theory could show conclusively that the bomb had entered the airline luggage in Heathrow”. On 31 January 2022, Professor Black posted that Dr Kerr’s book “fatally undermined” the Lockerbie conviction. The SCCRC analysis shows that Professor Black is wrong about that.

As we shall see, the Crown case that the bomb was infiltrated at Luqa is considerably bolstered by the evidence that Mr Megrahi procured luggage tags at that airport shortly before the plane carrying the bomb took off for Frankfurt.

The 2021 Appeal Court judgment

One striking feature of the 2021 appeal court judgement is that it fortifies the prosecution case by adding another finding of fact supportive of Mr Megrahi’s guilt. The court held that diary entries made by Mr Megrahi’s co-accused (who was acquitted by the trial judges) were admissible evidence against Mr Megrahi and had been wrongly excluded by the trial judges in their consideration of his guilt.

The diary entries are about obtaining luggage tags for Mr Megrahi. The diary evidence strongly supports the inference that the co-accused obtained luggage tags for Mr Megrahi which enabled him to play a hand in despatching the suitcase which contained the bomb as an unaccompanied bag onto the flight from Luqa Airport. The Appeal Court said at paragraph 72 of their judgement that the evidence was capable of having a

This new finding chimes very well with the other findings of fact which point to Mr Megrahi’s guilt; his contacts with the principal of MEBO and the Libyan officers who took delivery of MST-13 timers from the Swiss company; his furtive use of a false passport to travel incognito (he thought) from Libya to Malta the day before the bomb was despatched and to travel back to Libya very shortly after the plane carrying the bomb took off from Luqa; his qualified (resemblance) identification by a Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci as the person who purchased several items of clothing which were in the suitcase when the bomb exploded.

Conclusion

I declare an interest as senior Crown counsel in the second and third appeals. I am not seeking to persuade anyone that Mr Megrahi was correctly convicted although that is my personal view. I believe that anyone taking an interest in this most emotive of cases should exercise their own judgment on this based on a proper understanding of the facts. That can be acquired by reading the trial court and Appeal Court judgments. An even deeper understanding can be obtained by reading the SCCRC material, which is in the public domain. As I have endeavoured to explain in this article the SCCRC papers are of crucial importance because they show that Mr Megrahi was not framed and that the courts most certainly have not covered up a miscarriage of justice.