The following article appears in the latest edition of Private Eye.<\/p>\n
David Cameron would have done better to <\/em>read <\/em>a <\/em>detailed new book on <\/em>the Lockerbie <\/em>atrocity <\/em>before dismissing <\/em>it <\/em>in <\/em>a <\/em>soundbite <\/em>as <\/em>an \u201c<\/em>insult” <\/em>to the <\/em>families <\/em>of the <\/em>270 <\/em>who perished <\/em>just <\/em>before <\/em>Christmas <\/em>1988. <\/em>Families <\/em>want <\/em>and deserve the <\/em>truth.<\/em><\/p>\n The <\/em>book <\/em>reveals fresh <\/em>scientific <\/em>evidence relating to <\/em>a <\/em>tiny <\/em>fragment <\/em>of electrical <\/em>circuit <\/em>board <\/em>which <\/em>the <\/em>prosecution claimed had <\/em>in effect <\/em>solved the <\/em>mass m<\/em>urder. <\/em>Had there <\/em>been <\/em>a <\/em>second <\/em>appeal, <\/em>the new evidence <\/em>would <\/em>have shown <\/em>that <\/em>not <\/em>only <\/em>did Abdelbaset <\/em>al Megrahi suffer injustice, <\/em>but also that there was no evidence ty<\/em>ing Libya <\/em>to the <\/em>atrocity.<\/em><\/p>\n The book, Megrahi: You Are My Jury, by John Ashton, a researcher, writer and one of the Libyan\u2019s defence <\/em>team, <\/em>also <\/em>claims that <\/em>the <\/em>results <\/em>of forensic <\/em>tests <\/em>carried <\/em>out by <\/em>British <\/em>government scientists <\/em>on <\/em>the <\/em>circuit <\/em>board <\/em>cast <\/em>doubt on prosecution claims but were kept from the trial and defence team. In fact they were not disclosed <\/em>until <\/em>a <\/em>month before Megrahi was freed to return to <\/em>Libya.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0The <\/em>tiny <\/em>fragment <\/em>of board <\/em>was <\/em>said <\/em>to <\/em>have been <\/em>found <\/em>among <\/em>remains <\/em>of a <\/em>man’s <\/em>shirt <\/em>at <\/em>the <\/em>crash <\/em>site. <\/em>The <\/em>shirt <\/em>was traced to <\/em>Tony Gauci, a<\/em> <\/em>Maltese shopkeeper who said <\/em>more <\/em>t<\/em>han <\/em>two <\/em>years <\/em>alter <\/em>the <\/em>bombing that Megrah resembled <\/em>a <\/em>man <\/em>who bought the clothing. As Eye<\/em> <\/em>readers know, <\/em>Megrahi <\/em>bore <\/em>no <\/em>resemblance to the man originally described by Gauci to investigators. <\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0The board fragment was <\/em>said <\/em>to have <\/em>been <\/em>found <\/em>by Dr <\/em>Thomas Hayes <\/em>at <\/em>Rarde, the <\/em>Royal <\/em>Armament <\/em>Research <\/em>and Development Establishment, on 12 May 1989. <\/em>At trial his colleague Allen Feraday said it was \u201csimilar in all respects\u201d to circuit boards<\/em> used in timing devices from a Swiss company <\/em>Mebo, <\/em>w<\/em>hich <\/em>had <\/em>supplied the Libyans <\/em>with <\/em>20 <\/em>such devices.<\/em><\/p>\n But it <\/em>was never revealed<\/em> that <\/em>Feraday had <\/em>overseen <\/em>tests on the <\/em>metallic <\/em>content <\/em>of the <\/em>fragment <\/em>which <\/em>found it <\/em>was <\/em>different from <\/em>a <\/em>control <\/em>sample <\/em>of one of the <\/em>Mebo <\/em>boards. <\/em>Had the results been disclosed, <\/em>not <\/em>only wou<\/em>ld Feraday had been called to answer for them, but defence experts could <\/em>have been <\/em>called <\/em>upon to examine the metal mix, including under blast conditions. <\/em>According <\/em>to <\/em>Ashton’s book, Megrahi\u2019<\/em>s <\/em>legal <\/em>team recently did exactly that and two experts, <\/em>, <\/em>Chris <\/em>McArdle and Dr Jess <\/em>Cawley confirmed the fragment was no match for Mebo and was probably not<\/em> <\/em>commercially <\/em>made.<\/em><\/p>\n Eye readers have long been aware of concerns about the discovery of the fragment and its handling. Relevant pages on Dr Hayes\u2019s notes had been renumbered and the shirt\u2019s exhibit label had been altered.<\/em><\/p>\n It <\/em>seems <\/em>that <\/em>by <\/em>the <\/em>time <\/em>of Megrahi’s <\/em>2001 <\/em>trial, <\/em>prosecutors <\/em>had <\/em>learned <\/em>few <\/em>lessons <\/em>from <\/em>scathing <\/em>criticisms <\/em>eight years earlier <\/em>from <\/em>the <\/em>May <\/em>inquiry, <\/em>which <\/em>heard <\/em>in <\/em>essence <\/em>that <\/em>an <\/em>Irish family <\/em>had been w<\/em>rongly <\/em>convicted <\/em>of <\/em>handling IRA <\/em>explosives largely thanks to the <\/em>activities <\/em>– <\/em>including <\/em>hidden results and altered notebooks<\/em> <\/em>of Rarde <\/em>scientists.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0This new material, coupled <\/em>with doubts over Gauci\u2019s i<\/em>dentification evidence, destroy the two main pillars of Megrahi\u2019<\/em>s conviction. It<\/em> also <\/em>confirms <\/em>the fears <\/em>of observers who <\/em>sat <\/em>through the<\/em> <\/em>original <\/em>trial <\/em>in <\/em>