Fisk this - Jack Straw on oil and Al-Megrahi

In the Telegraph and other papers:

Mr Straw also claims today that Mr Brown had nothing to do with his change of heart over the PTA [Prisoner Transfer Agreement], adding: “I certainly didn’t talk to the PM. There is no paper trail to suggest he was involved at all.”

Even if literally true, the above statement is consistent with the possibilities that:

- Mr Straw communicated via a third party with the PM on oil-for-Lockerbie-bombers (or, the PM raised the matter with others)
- Mr Straw communicated directly with the PM, but not through speech
- There were once paper-based records to show the PM's involvement, but they have been destroyed
- There were, or still are, records held in other form (e.g. email)

A good example of a "non-denial denial"?

More on Al-Megrahi

Should an innocent man stay in jail to assuage our feelings about Colonel Gaddafi? A member of the Scottish Parliament thinks not.

And the total number of visitors to Professor Robert Black's blog has leapt 50% in the last week. They also serve, who only stand and wait.

A gross miscarriage of justice?

The proposed release, on medical and compassionate grounds, of the supposed Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi, is controversial and currently leads the TV news agenda here.

It is well known that GP Jim Swire, who lost his daughter in the atrocity, attended the trial in the Netherlands and became convinced that Al-Megrahi was innocent of the charge laid against him.

It is also most interesting to read a blog set up two years ago by Robert Black QC FRSE, Professor Emeritus of Scots Law in the University of Edinburgh. His blog supports Swire's contention and discusses the way in which the legal case against Al-Megrahi was conducted. The very first post contains this paragraph:

It is my firm view that the crucial incriminating findings made by the judges were unwarranted by the evidence led in court and were in many cases entirely contrary to the weight of that evidence. I am convinced that no Scottish jury, following the instructions traditionally given by judges regarding the assessment of evidence and the meaning and application of the concept of reasonable doubt, would or could have convicted Megrahi. So how did it come about that the three distinguished and experienced judges who concurred in the verdict felt able to convict him?

Black summarises and comments critically on numerous points of evidence and the court's findings in relation to each. He posts again today and says:

The families of Pan Am 103, as victims, deserve justice; they deserve to know the truth. My own dark thought is that any decision made by Mr MacAskill will not really be based on compassion but on political expediency. There seems to be a desire to get Mr Megrahi out of the country and to have the appeal halted at all costs. Perhaps the Crown Office and governments fear what might be revealed as the appeal continues.

Black's blog stat counter shows that he has had only some 33,000 visits since October 2007. Perhaps, reader, you will look at what he has to say and encourage others to do so.