A letter to Kirsty Scott, the Guardian editorial and Dr. Hans Köchler. Re: Lockerbie bomber must serve at least 27 years, The Guardian 25-11-03


Kirsty,

I read your article, as above, with interest.

What was most interesting about it was that, in common with all other articles on your website on this topic, no mention is made of the findings of Dr. Hans Köchler, Professor of Philosophy at Innsbruck University in Austria, and an independent observer (accredited as such by the UN) of the proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands.

Whilst your article does allude to the possibility of an appeal it only mentions the possibility that a piece of evidence was planted and ignores many other, frequently more serious concerns with this conviction. Consider this extract from Dr. Köchler´s latest statement on the Libyan compensation payment;

"4. It is to be recalled that neither in the trial nor the appeal proceedings at the Scottish Court in the Netherlands was any material evidence presented linking the sentenced Libyan national to the crime. The verdict was entirely based on inferences and circumstantial evidence. Many of the statements of the Prosecution’s witnesses were contradictory – or even proven wrong in the course of the trial. The co-accused Libyan national, Mr. Fhimah, was acquitted by the Court – not because of lack of evidence (“not proven”), but because it was proven, in the opinion of the Court, that he had nothing to do with the crime (although the entire strategy of the prosecution was based on the assumption that the two accused had prepared the crime together).

5. The entire trial and appeal proceedings were characterized by a lack of adequate defense for the convicted Libyan national. The defense team in many instances had chosen not to use the evidence available and had thus created the impression of pursuing an agenda different from that of providing adequate legal defense in this particular case. All the details are contained in the undersigned’s observer reports of 3 February 2001 and 26 March 2002.

6. Furthermore, it is obvious that an intelligence officer alone – from whichever country – was never in a position of planning, financing and carrying out a terrorist act such as the bombing of a large jetliner in midair. It would have been the duty of the Scottish investigating authorities to continue their investigations so as to find out which persons from which country (or countries) actually ordered, financed and carried out the terrorist act."

Now reading your article, or others in the Guardian, would not give this impression whatsoever. None of these points is even mentioned. Certainly they are not explored so as to evaluate whether or not they might be correct. If these points are in fact correct it would be something of a scandel would it not that our government, in collusion with the US government, is attempting to frame a foreign national for a crime he could not have committed?

It seems to me the Guardian has done a thorough dis-service to this story. Did anyone from the Guardian actually attend the trial? Did anybody examine a non-governmental source about the trial? Would you please address the points raised with a new article and restore my confidence in the one paper I thought I could count on.

Thanks,

alan

p.s. another source worth reading is Edward S. Herman, Prof of Finance at the Wharton School.