The Scottish Sunday Times has today published a letter by me about some of the significant errors in its serialised extract of Kenny MacAskill’s book The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice published on 15 May. This comes after a three-month wrangle, which began on 17 May when I wrote to the paper asking that they correct the errors (my email can be read here). It took almost two months for the paper to respond. The letter, which was from the paper’s legal department, contained annotations by Mr MacAskill of my complaint and a flat refusal to print corrections (the letter can be read here).
I wrote back on 3 August pointing out errors in Mr MacAskill’s annotations and again asking that the paper publish corrections of the significant errors in line with section 1 of the IPSO editors’ code of practice (the letter can be read here). The paper again refused to print corrections, but offered to publish a letter from me. After some negotiation, it today published the following letter under the headline MacAskill ignores Megrahi evidence:
The first serialised extract of Kenny MacAskill’s book, The Lockerbie Bombing: The Search for Justice, contained factual errors (“Who was really behind the Lockerbie bombing”, News Review, May 15). I shall confine myself to two.
First, MacAskill claims Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was “unable to give any explanation” for his presence in Malta — where the Lockerbie bomb supposedly began its journey — on the night before and morning of the bombing. He adds: “Even in his own biography professing his innocence he simply says he can’t recall why he went.” In fact, in his biography, which I wrote, Megrahi gave a clear explanation of the visit. Second, MacAskill states crown witness Edwin Bollier claimed to have seen Megrahi at explosive tests conducted in Libya two years before Lockerbie. In fact, Bollier made no such claim, either in his numerous police interviews or in his trial testimony.
MacAskill insists Megrahi was guilty of the bombing, yet ignores the substantial body of evidence that suggests not only that the prosecution case was deeply flawed, but also that Megrahi was not involved.
You can read a more detailed critique of the book extract here.