21 - 27 February 2002
Issue No.574
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 21 - 27 February 2002 Issue No.574 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
New proof too late?
The judges at the Lockerbie appeal in the Netherlands are considering their verdict. But, with new information surfacing, criticism of both the prosecution and the defence is growing. Judit Neurink writes from Camp Zeist
"I have lived for 13 years with this. If we had done something about it then, maybe we would not be sitting here now," said an emotional Raymond Manly in the witness box of the Lockerbie appeal at Camp Zeist. The former Heathrow security guard's outburst illustrated why the defence was so eager to hear his evidence regarding a possible link between a break-in at Heathrow airport and the bombing of a PanAm Boeing at Lockerbie hours later, on 21 December 1988. The defence needs this evidence to disprove the prosecution's claim that the bomb that blew up the flight originated in Malta at the orders of Libyan suspect Abdel-Basset Al-Megrahi.
The break-in at Heathrow's Terminal 3 took place on the night of 20 December and related to a locked door between "landside" -- the part where passengers are free to move -- and "airside" -- strictly for personnel with special security clearance who work on the planes and in the baggage area. Manly discovered, during his nightshift, that the padlock securing the door at night had been broken "with great force." He complained at the court about the fact that this breach of security was never taken very seriously, and that he was not questioned about it by anti-terrorist squad officers for a month after the Lockerbie disaster.
Manly, who was clearly in poor health, also seemed to be plagued by a distorted memory, his recollection of details differing considerably at some points from both the testimony of his former boss, Philip Radly, and that of the three prosecution witnesses. Both Manly and Radly angrily disagreed with the suggestion made by prosecutor Alan Turnbull that the door had been forced open by baggage handlers taking a short cut after having worked late because of a delayed flight. Both were sure the lock had been broken from landside, and not from airside as would have been the case then. Turnbull replied by pointing out the muted response of airport officials and police to the incident, indicating that they did not believe an intruder had slipped into one of the airport's restricted areas.
The defence has increasingly been paying more attention to the new evidence revealed by the security staff, especially as it has only been revealed following Al-Megrahi's conviction last year. The Crown had decided, in the earlier trial, not to call Manly as a witness so Manly went to the press with his story. But it now appears that the only thing proven by the evidence is that, eighteen hours before the doomed flight took off, a door was broken open at Heathrow in the area where baggage for the flight was to be handled.
This has all added to the charges levied by observers and jurists about the way the defence lawyers have handled the case. Their disregard of reports that main witness Tony Gauci was pampered with holidays to Scotland by Scottish police has brought them under criticism from the secretary-general of the Cairo-based Arab Lawyers' Union, Farouk Abu Eissa. He and a group of union representatives were present during the last week of the appeal. Abu Eissa expresses some doubts about the fairness of the trial: "Why were the witnesses on the break-in not heard earlier? The Crown should be looking for justice, so why not call them?"
Eissa also points to Manly's testimony that the broken padlock disappeared following his interrogation by the police squad, as well as to the tough security surrounding the court and in particular Al-Megrahi. "I doubt if a fair trial is possible in this atmosphere," he said. Abu Eissa made clear that he had grave doubts about the earlier trial and now hoped that the appeal would turn out to be "more just." This is more likely, given the critical mood that the five Scottish judges have been exhibiting in questioning both prosecution and defence lawyers.
Ian Ferguson, an investigative journalist who is still coming up with new facts surrounding the disaster almost 14 years after the event, has also been critical of the defence. He tracked down a retired senior CIA agent, Robert Baer, who offered the defence team information indicating that Libya was not behind the downing of the PanAm Boeing. But Baer's offer was not accepted and the potentially trial-defining evidence was never raised in court. Baer's information reveals that Iran masterminded and funded the bombing. Two days after the disaster Iran paid $11 million into the Swiss bank account of Ahmed Jibril's Palestinian PFLP-GC group The bombing, according to Baer, was the work of one of the group's German cells and two of the members involved appear to have been Iranian agents. Their names have since been added to the Iranian government's roll of honour for services rendered to the "Islamic revolutionary struggle against the West" and one of them has been singled out for achieving Iran's "greatest-ever strike against the west." Ferguson cannot understand why the defence did not even want to talk to Baer and he wonders about their ignoring his scoop about Tony Gauci's Scottish holidays. This could have been enough to get Gauci branded as unreliable, which would mean that his evidence -- essential for securing a conviction of Al-Megrahi -- would be dropped.
Ferguson's latest information came after the court at Camp Zeist adjourned last week for the judges to review whether they would be overturning the original verdict. Their main task is to decide whether their three colleagues at the earlier trial erred in handing Al-Megrahi a prison sentence. The judges are also considering the possibility of a retrial, as has been suggested by the defence team. But, with the cost of the trial and the cost of the investigation already hovering around the 150 million euro mark, this is a costly option. The verdict is expected in the first half of March.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page