Lockerbie lies

Without wishing to detract from the merits of the fine contributions of Iain McKie and Thomas Crooks (Letters, 27 November) regarding the Lockerbie witness reward monies, I was convinced that the trial was a farce long before the reward information was made public.

My disgust at the trial proceedings came when the United Nations appointed observer, Professor Hans Köechler published his first report in 2003 and criticised the interference in the presentation of evidence to the court by representatives of foreign governments.

Reporting on the appeal, Prof Köechler was similarly critical, to which the Crown Office responded by stating that it is a matter for the court itself to regulate who should be present. Explaining that the High Court of Justiciary has, “for long accepted that it is a matter for the Lord Advocate and Crown Counsel whom they choose to have in court in their support”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Of course, the Crown Office can do as they like, but they should not be surprised if by having anonymous United States ­officials supervising in the dock of a Scottish court they have abandoned any hope of appearing impartial in a political sense. 

That was how Prof Köechler saw it and we shouldn’t be surprised if the world (excluding the US) views the Lockerbie trial and appeal verdicts as the work of Uncle Sam via a puppet state.

Tom Minogue

Victoria Terrace

Dunfermline, Fife