Verdict Reached in Lockerbie Trial
Aired January 31, 2001 - 5:00 a.m. ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS
FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANAND NAIDOO, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, and welcome to special
coverage of the Lockerbie bombing trial verdict. I'm Anand Naidoo, at
CNN Center. We welcome our viewers from around the world.
We're standing by for a verdict to be handed down any minute now: Two
Libyans are accused of blowing up Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, over
Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 270 people.
Richard Blystone joins us now from outside the court at Camp Zeist in the
Netherlands.
Richard, what's happening there?
RICHARD BLYSTONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anand, many
members of the families, bereaved parents, widows, and widowers are
inside there now, about a dozen from Britain and dozens, I would say, from
the United States. Nearly three-quarters of the 270 victims of Pan Am Flight
103 were Americans.
The closed circuit television coverage of the trial is not available to
us, but it
is available to families around the world, in Britain, in England and Scotland,
and in the United States. So those people will hear the verdict microseconds
after it happens.
What the three judges -- are probably right now filing into the courtroom,
the court will rise, and the judges will sit and will give their verdicts
in the
case of the two Libyans, Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi, allegedly a Libyan
intelligence agent accused of bringing the Lockerbie bomb into Malta from
Libya from where it was transshipped to Frankfurt, West Germany, on to
London, where it joined Pan Am Flight 103.
The other accused: Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. He was an ex-station manager
for Libyan Arab Airlines, in Malta.
The prosecution case hinging on the fact that the judges must believe beyond
reasonable doubt that the bomb actually entered this chain at Malta, and
thus
that the two were able to -- and probably the only ones able to -- have
put it
aboard the Air Malta plane for Frankfurt.
The prosecution has torn into that argument in its - I mean, excuse me,
the
defense has torn into that argument, saying that any clever terrorist would
not
choose to put a bomb aboard in Malta with two intersecting flights and
hope
that it would be on time -- unaccompanied, undetected in that flight leaving
from London hours later.
So if the judges are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, we will be getting
the verdict any second now. They have three choices: guilty, innocent,
or
case not proven. In the case of guilty, an appeal would probably be
launched almost immediately. In the case of innocent, whichever or both
are
declared innocent will be free to leave.
We understand, although we don't have it officially, that they will be
turned
over to Dutch authorities and then put on a United Nations plane back to
Libya. That would be retracing the trip they made almost two years ago,
April 5, 1999, which was more than a year before the start of this trial
--
that was May 3, 2000. The trial was a very long one, starting nine months
ago: 84 days of testimony, 235 witnesses, the prosecution case lasting
into
November, the defense case very brief -- Anand.
NAIDOO: Richard, as you point out, there was many standards, many
milestones, reached in this trial, also that of in forensic investigation.
I mean,
the prosecution was trying to show that the materials used in the construction
of...
BLYSTONE: We have a verdict, Anand, we have a verdict. We have a
verdict: I'm hearing from the relay from the courtroom that Abdel Baset
Ali
Al-Megrahi has been found guilty of murder in the Lockerbie bombing.
We're waiting now to hear the verdict in the case of Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah
-- Megrahi, 48 years old, alleged to have been a Libyan agent who brought
the bomb from Libya into Malta, where it was placed aboard an Air Malta
flight for Frankfurt, West Germany, then on to London; it tagged for New
York, and it got aboard Pan Am Flight 103.
We're waiting now to hear what else -- we're waiting now for the second:
not guilty for Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah. Forty-four years old, he had been
up
to a couple of months before the bombing, the station manager for Libyan
Arab Airways in Malta. It was -- the prosecution alleged that it was he
who
used his airport connections and his airport pass to get baggage tags
consigning the suitcase containing the radio cassette player containing
the
bomb onto this Air Malta flight. So he is not guilty; he will be free to
go
home to Libya.
We will be waiting now to hear what the defense of Mr. Megrahi will say.
The right of appeal is not automatic, but in this case, it is thought very
likely it
would be granted. The defense lawyer for Megrahi, William Taylor, will
be
putting in a plea for that -- for that appeal.
If that appeal is granted, it would be heard before five Scottish judges,
different judges, from the same high Scottish Court. It would be heard
here
in Camp Zeist, in the Netherlands, the compromise site agreed between
Britain, the United States and Libya, if Megrahi wants to be present.
Otherwise, it could be heard in Edinburgh, Scotland -- Anand. NAIDOO:
Richard, take us through the sequence of events. What are we expecting
now to happen is that the defense, at least Al- Megrahi's defense, will
now
present -- would it be mitigating arguments to the judge?
BLYSTONE: That is a possibility, but we will not know the timing of this,
Anand, until it actually happened. There's -- there was expected to be
a
pause in the courtroom while the defense digests this, and then the
opportunity for the announcement of an appeal. It may well be that the
pronouncing of a sentence would come before that. We'll just have to wait,
I'm sorry, until that happens.
But once again, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, whose lawyer, in October, moved
for the charges against him to be dropped, because there was no evidence
he was even in that airport in Malta on the date of the bombing -- he has
been declared not guilty, innocent. The judges had another option here:
They
could have ruled case not proven. That is possible in Scottish law, but
apparently, they did not, and in the case of Abdel Baset Ali Al-Megrahi,
they found the prosecution's totally circumstantial case to be convincing
enough to be beyond reasonable doubt.
The defense in this case really had to prove nothing. All it had to do
was to
do enough to tear apart the prosecution case to win acquittal.
Now, what the judges had to believe was that the bomb was indeed put
aboard at Malta and that Megrahi was instrumental in putting it there.
The
evidence gathered over years of investigation, 15,000 people interviewed,
180,000 fragments of evidence, resulted in what was a very delicate web
of
circumstance designed to show that Megrahi was the one who brought the
bomb and that Fhimah helped him to put it aboard.
It has been an exercise throughout in the uses of circumstantial evidence.
The
prosecution case depends on this: In one of the items of debris from the
bombing was found a piece of clothing and embedded in it a fragment of
circuit board. Detectives, investigators, linked that circuit board to
circuit
boards used in the past by Libya. The prosecution brought forward a
witness from a clothing store in Malta who said he had sold that piece
of
clothing to Abdel Baset Ali Al- Megrahi. The defense tried to rip up that
identification; obviously, though, the judges were persuaded -- Anand.
NAIDOO: Richard, stay with us, we're now going to go to the village of
Lockerbie, where villagers there have also been awaiting this verdict.
Joining
us from there is our senior international correspondent Walter Rodgers
--
Walter.
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hello, Anand.
In about an hour and 15 minutes, officials in the town of Lockerbie, in
the
town hall just behind me, will be holding a news conference, and they will
be
rendering their judgment on the quality of the verdict in the trial of
the -- of
the two men who were accused in this trial of bringing down Pan Am Flight
103. For most of the 4,000 Scots who live in this town, however, they're
hoping this will be something of a final chapter. A collective sigh of
relief
could almost be heard throughout the town.
It has been a 12-year-long ordeal for the 4,000 Scots who live here. Many
of them lived through the nightmare of that night. The town did, indeed,
lose
11 of its citizens the night the jumbo jet, the 747, blew up over the town
and
the fiery debris rained down.
Curiously, of the surviving relatives, only one of the Lockerbie surviving
relatives is still in the town. As I say, most people in the town would
like to
bring this to some sort of a closure. They are, I'm sure, grateful the
verdict is
completed now. And they can get on with the rest of their lives, and just
be
another quiet lull in the Scots town, just a little north of the English
border --
Anand.
NAIDOO: Walter, stay with us as well.
We're now going to go to Manhattan in New York, where some relatives of
the victims of the Lockerbie tragedy have been watching the verdict on
closed-circuit television.
Frank Buckley is outside the federal building in downtown Manhattan and
joins us now -- Frank.
FRANK BUCKLEY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Good morning.
This is one of the locations, where family members of the victims of this
tragedy have been able to come for the past several months to watch the
trial unfold on a closed-circuit television, in a room here at the Jacob
Javitz
Federal Building.
They are able to watch the trial by themselves. No reporters have been
able
to be present, or any sorts of observers. They've been able to take in
the
trial. And several of them have stayed throughout the trial watching every
day. Others have just arrived this morning to hear the verdict announced.
We know that this morning, some 25 people or so stayed together in a hotel
here in New York City. They came together in a bus to this location, and
have watched on a wide-screen TV to see the verdict read in the court.
Now we are expecting at some point later this morning for some of them
to
come out. They haven't organized anything, per se, but we do expect them
to come out at some point today, and to tell us their reaction to the verdict.
We know that they were concerned that some of the prosecution, because
it
was circumstantial and because one of the key witnesses was attacked so
heavily by the defense in cross-examination, there was some concern that
there would not be a guilty verdict to come out of this trial. Some of
them
will undoubtedly be happy that there is at least one guilty verdict. But
again,
we are still waiting for them to come out to give us their reaction.
NAIDOO: OK, Frank, thank you.
Now the London "Times" newspaper referred to the case as the biggest and
costliest mass murder case in British history.
For his assessment we're joined now by David Leppard. We'll get back to
David Leppard.
We're going to go back to Richard Blystone now, who's at Camp Zeist in
the Netherlands -- Richard.
BLYSTONE: Hell, Anand.
Well, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, the 44-year-old ex-station manager of
Libyan Arab Airways on the Island of Malta, where the bomb allegedly
started its journey, has now been escorted from the courtroom.
We understand that he will be turned over from Scottish authorities here
in
Camp Zeist -- this is a little bit of Scotland here. He will be turned
back over
to the Dutch, who will turn him over to the United Nations. He will be
free to
go and forever beyond the reach of criminal courts, we are told, in any
country.
Ali Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi is still sitting in the court, we understand,
awaiting the pronouncement of sentence and perhaps the launching of an
appeal by his defense -- Anand.
NAIDOO: OK, thanks, Richard. We'll get back to you in a moment.
Now let's go to our guest in London, David Leppard of London "Sunday
Times." He's covered this trial and in fact -- not the trial but the events
since
the bombing of the plane 12 years ago.
Mr. Leopard, there's a split verdict here, one guilty, one not guilty.
What do
you make of that?
DAVID LEPPARD, "SUNDAY TIMES": Well, it sounds a bit confusing,
but this is a tremendous triumph, in fact, for the British law enforcement
system and particularly for the Scottish police who worked so hard and
so
assiduously to produce a case which could stand up in an independent court.
I think there'll be tremendous relief in the law enforcement in community
in
Britain and America, about the guilty verdicts on one of the defendants,
Megrahi. Clearly, this verdict sustains their evidence. It sustains the
forensic
case. It sustains the eyewitness evidence, which pointed to Megrahi as
the
man who bought clothes in a shop in Malta, which were forensically linked
to the bomb parts when it was recovered around Lockerbie after the crash.
A lot of people were saying that the prosecution case was contaminated;
that it had been affected by political considerations. I think this verdict
of the
guilty on the one defendant really does ride roughshod over that assessment.
This is a fine piece of criminal detective work. A lot of people here and
in
America will be very, very pleased about the guilty verdict.
NAIDOO: Well, as you point out, you know, a fine piece of criminal
detective work, but it does -- the guilty verdict does beg the question:
Did
Al-Megrahi basically sit down in a coffee shop in Malta and dream this
up?
LEPPARD: I think that's obviously not the case.
The police, the security services, the FBI have always taken the view,
since
this evidence has been acquired, that this was a conspiracy by the Libyan
intelligence services; that Megrahi, although he is the only convicted
defendant in the dock, was simply a pawn or an instrument of a wider
conspiracy involving Libyan intelligence services and the Libyan government
at the very highest level.
And I think one of the questions now that is raised by this verdict is:
Who
else inside the Libyan government, inside the Libyan security operators
was
involved in the murder of these 270 victims of the Lockerbie bombing?
NAIDOO: And will we ever know that?
LEPPARD: Well, we certainly won't know it in the sense that we know that
Megrahi is guilty today. I don't think there's going to be any further
indictments issued. I don't think that the level of evidence against others
unknown, as the indictments originally put it, is sufficient to be put
before a
court of law.
I think the guilty verdict on one of the defendants, although there is
of course
likely to be an appeal, should put this case to bed as it were. A lot of
the
relatives will, I think, be very relieved that at last we have established
beyond reasonable doubt that one of these two individuals was behind the
bombing.
NAIDOO: OK. Mr. Leppard, there's one other question. You've covered
this trial, at least the crash and the investigation very closely. What
can you
-- can you kind of characterize for us what was remarkable about the
investigation?
LEPPARD: Well this was a massive criminal investigation. And probably
most remarkable in all of this was the painstaking work gathering forensic
evidence from the shattered debris of the Pan Am jumbo jet, which, of
course, exploded six miles over the Scottish countryside.
I think it's probably true to say that it's...
NAIDOO: OK, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to interrupt you there.
Richard Blystone, our correspondent at Camp Zeist, has some new
information for us. Let's go to him -- Richard.
BLYSTONE: Yes, Anand, we're hearing now that the court has risen and
that the sentence will come down in a little over two-and-a-half hours
at
2:00 p.m. our time here in the Netherlands. That's six hours ahead of you
on
the East Coast of the United States. The lawyer for Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi
has risen earlier to say that his client is indeed innocent; and if any
sentence is
handed down, it should start when the accused arrived here in Lockerbie.
They've been nearly two years, both of them, in jail here in Lockerbie.
And
he's been saying that the any sentence should be said to start at -- on
April
5, 1999, when they arrived here.
The guilty verdict now does raise the prospect of claims against the Libyan
government. The regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya is in the frame, if
not
in the courtroom. The charge, as it was finally amended, says that the
two
acted in concert to further the aims of the Libyan intelligence agency.
NAIDOO: OK, Richard, we'll get back to you.
The acting U.S. attorney general is about to make a statement about the
verdict. Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
BOB MULLEN, ACTING U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: ...
offices to be congratulated on the case it presented, the evidence it
presented to the Scottish court.
We also owe a debt of gratitude to the Scottish police and the FBI for
the
thorough investigation that led to this successful prosecution.
The investigation continues to determine who else may have been involved
in
this act of terrorism, and to bring that individual or those individuals
to
justice.
QUESTION: Could we have your name, please, sir?
MULLEN: Yes, my name is Bob Mullen, and I'm the acting deputy attorney
general.
And after I turn it over to Neil Gallagher, who is representing the FBI,
I'd be
happy to answer any of your questions.
NEIL GALLAGHER, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS:
Good morning, my name is Neil Gallagher. I'm assistant director of the
FBI.
On December 21, 1988, I was in charge of the FBI's counterterrorism
program. Today, I have a lot of mixed emotions. From one perspective, I
feel rather pleased that the work of the Scottish police, of the FBI, has
proved to be accurate, that we have identified the person that's responsible
for these 270 murders.
At the same time, as Mr. Mullen and I just spent time with the families,
you
look in the eyes of the families and you realize that these are real people
who
lost their loved ones. So it's not a sense of satisfaction because there
are still
270 innocent people who were murdered on that day.
Thank you.
QUESTION: Gentlemen, one of the family members, a Ms. Cohen, came
out and expressed concern that the real mastermind of this -- and she
believes it was Gadhafi -- is going to get away with impunity. Can you
offer
any reassurances to her?
MULLEN: I stood at microphones in 1991 announcing the indictment. I was
asked questions about why others weren't included, and the answer then
is
the answer as it is today: In order to bring an individual into court,
you need
evidence. We have, over the years, continued to try to accumulate that
evidence.
At such point in time when we have evidence to bring into court any other
individual who played any other role in this tragedy, we will indict and
bring
them into court. And I say that, I believe, on behalf of not only the United
States prosecutorial authorities, but also the Scottish authorities, with
whom
we have worked closely over the years.
QUESTION: Is this case closed?
MULLEN: No, the case is not closed. The investigation continues. It has
continued since the plane went down and will continue until every individual
-- when we can identify who played any role in this tragedy is brought
to
justice.
QUESTION: Did anybody talk to the president?
MULLEN: Not yet.
Any other questions? Thank you very much.
NAIDOO: That was Bob Mullen, the acting U.S. attorney general, on his
reaction to the verdict handed down at Camp Zeist.
Now let's go to Bert Ammerman, one of the family members. He is speaking
in New York right now.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
BERT AMMERMAN, BROTHER OF VICTIM: This has been a surreal
experience. There's no question today going into the verdict that we wouldn't
be here today without the family group, unfortunately, with the right cause,
and the support of the media. Any one of those three missing, we would
not
be here today.
As I went in this morning, there was a great deal of comfort and peace
for
me. Each family comes to closure at their different levels and different
times.
For some, it was brining their loved ones back; for some, it was having
the
memorial at Arlington Cemetery. For me, it always was to find the truth
and
to have a trial.
When I met with President Bush in April of 1989, I told him that this was
a
political act, this was not a criminal act. It should never have been in
the
criminal arena. We told the Clinton administration it should have never
been
in the criminal arena. They put it there, I believe, because they never
thought
there would be indictments.
I will be indebted forever to the Scottish police, to the FBI. They surprised
everyone and got indictments in '91. And the families kept the pressure
on
our government and the British government, and we got a trial.
And yet when I came in this morning I didn't really care what the verdict
was
going to be because I knew that I was able to hear the evidence. And when
I went in this morning, I came to my own judgment that these two men were
guilty. I wasn't sure what the courts were going to do.
And as typical for us over the 12 years, through good efforts of everyone,
we sat there, the judges came out, and the sound didn't work. So we could
not hear what the verdicts were. That was frustrating, through no one's
fault.
Fhimah was found innocent, Megrahi was found guilty. With Megrahi being
found guilty, that is state-sponsored terrorism. That leads to the doorsteps
of
Gadhafi. Gadhafi is a coward. He is a rogue leader and Libya's a rogue
nation.
I don't hold out much hope that our new president or the prime minister
of
England at this point will show any backbone, because the politicians over
12 years have never shown a backbone. They've never done what is right
for citizens. Some in government have, but most of the leaders wanted this
to
go away. They wanted it to go away because they're more concerned about
Middle East peace and oil than they are about their own citizens. And that's
what I've learned in 12 years.
We have a new president now, a new administration, but many of the people
he's put in charge were in office 12 years ago, so they don't need long
to be
brought up to speed. And I would hope that President Bush, Secretary of
State Colin Powell, will meet immediately and make the following
announcement: that Libya will remain a rogue nation, and that Gadhafi is
a
rogue leader, and they will have terrorist classification until he is out
as a
leader.
And that should never go away. They should continue to move for the
sanctions. This is state-sponsored terrorism. Megrahi was an agent in the
Libyan Intelligence secret service. He didn't do this by himself. His guilty
plea today leads to the doorsteps of Gadhafi, but I doubt that our political
leaders have the substance or the backbone to do what's right, and that's
to
hold Gadhafi personally accountable for this.
We'll get a lot of rhetoric today. We'll get rhetoric out of the White
House:
They'll spin it. We'll get rhetoric out of the State Department: They'll
spin it.
And then they'll hope that this will go away -- and sadly, personally,
I tend
to think they'll most likely be right.
But for me, I can walk away today, and I am: My political activism is over.
I
fell very satisfied that I did everything possible that I could do in my
brother's
name. And the families up there, I think most of them feel the same way.
We
got some justice today. One individual, hopefully, is going to spend the
rest
of his life, natural life, behind bars in Scotland.
And that is a tribute to this process: If there's anything that's positive
out of
this, the system works. This is the first time we've ever had a trial in
a neutral
country under the jurisdiction of the offended country. That is a major
step
forward, and I hope that the United Nations continues that and moves in
that
direction. The Scottish judicial process was outstanding. No one can
question the integrity of what took place.
So our loved ones did not die in vain. Today is a day of satisfaction.
True justice, though, I believe, will never be served, because the person
that
should be brought to justice is the leader of Libya, and I just don't think
that's going to happen.
Any questions?
QUESTION: Why do you think they had a problem tying the evidence...
NAIDOO: That was Bert Ammerman, the brother of one of the victims of
the Lockerbie bombing, the bombing that took place 12 years ago. He said
that the actual judicial process, the Scottish judicial process, was outstanding
and that the trial was a tribute to that process. But he did express a
lot of
bitterness about the fact that what he believed -- who he believed -- to
be
the ultimate culprit and the man behind the bombing of the plane was actually
Moammar Gadhafi, the leader of Libya.
Now, we're going to go to Libya, to take in what Libyan television has
been
saying about this verdict.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): ...the verdict by unanimous
decision, and we heard a while ago that the defense committee will submit
an
appeal -- to appeal for the decision to make an appeal due within the next
14 days.
We also knew that there are consultations underway between the judges and
will continue until -- to the end to lay the final details of this verdict
that was
issued following the discussions of the Lockerbie case.
As you know -- that this court started its discussions and held 84 sessions
from the start, with the total of 506 hours, including 90 hours of closed
sessions, and discussed 10,000 pages of information and submitted 235
witnesses.
Then, therefore, this is the verdict that was issued, as I have told you,
on
Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi, that is not guilty, but the defense will submit
an
appeal within 14 days as of today, a petition to appeal on the verdict.
And
also there are other details we will update to you soon, dear audience
from
Zeist camp, in Holland, we greet you, and farewell.
NAIDOO: Libyan television reporter there, on the coverage of the verdict
at
Camp Zeist.
We are going now back to Richard Blystone, who's at Camp Zeist.
Richard, if you're there: We heard just a few minutes ago...
BLYSTONE: Anand...
NAIDOO: Go ahead.
BLYSTONE: Yes, well, let me just say first, and quickly, that Phillip Turner,
CNN producer, was in the courtroom when the verdict was handed down.
Phil, first of all, the reactions of the accused, as they heard in the
case of
Megrahi, guilty, in the case of Fahima, not guilty.
PHILLIP TURNER, CNN PRODUCER: Megrahi looked straight ahead
when Lord Sutherland gave the verdict. It was unanimous verdict. He
looked straight ahead, they showed no emotion, and then there was some
pause.
And then it was the verdict on Fahima. Fahima showed no reaction.
The reaction was mainly from the public galleries, where there were over
200 people seated. Many of them were journalists, but there was a
delegation from Libya that was sitting directly behind the two accused.
And
when the verdicts went out, there was a palpable intake of breath. People
couldn't believe it. There was a gasp.
BLYSTONE: What about the relatives of the victims?
TURNER: The relatives of the victims were hard to see from my vantage
point. I couldn't see the usual family members there. I don't know if they
were in another part of the courtroom. There seemed to be a delegation
of
Libyans directly behind the defendants. And when the defendants entered
the courtroom, one raised his arm in -- either in friendship or
acknowledgment or in solidarity with one of the two accused.
BLYSTONE: Now, this was an emotional moment for many of the families
of the accused, bereaved, Dr. Jim Swier (ph), among them, the British
doctor whose daughter Flora (ph) died. Anything from him?
TURNER: Yes, there was a long pause when the clerk of the court
recorded the verdicts, and there was five minutes of silence, and just
afterwards, about 15 minutes into the procedures, it appears that Dr. Swier
collapsed. There was a -- efforts were being made to get him out of the
gallery area and he collapsed. He's led the campaign for the British families
ever since the incident, and it must have just been overwhelming for him
to
receive this information.
BLYSTONE: OK, thanks Phil Turner, CNN producer.
The British families are supposed to make a brief statement very shortly
and
after that, tomorrow afternoon, in London, they make a fuller statement.
They're expected to demand from the British government a full...
NAIDOO: Our apologies -- we've lost Richard Blystone there.
So let's go to David Leppard, a journalist in London who's been covering
the crash and investigation.
Mr. Leppard, we heard the -- Bob Mullen, the acting U.S. attorney general,
as well as Neil Gallagher of the FBI say that this case is not closed,
that the
United States will still go after those people who they believe are also
responsible for this. What is your reaction to that?
LEPPARD: Well, I'm surprised to see that the American law enforcement
authorities are saying the investigation continues. I wasn't aware of that.
But
if it is continuing, as they say, I think it's going to focus on a meeting
which
took place at the headquarters of the Libyan intelligence services in Tripoli
several weeks before the bombing was carried out in December of 1988.
The issue really is who was at this meeting, which according to Intelligent
sources that I've spoken to, was actually the meeting which decided to
carry
out the bombing of Pan Am 103. I think we can fairly safely say that the
meeting was probably chaired by the then head of Libyan Intelligence, who's
a man called Abdula Alsanooci (ph), and a number of other people, senior
officers of the Libyan intelligence services, were also present.
Now, these people, if the prosecution case is correct -- which clearly
it is,
because it's been vindicated today -- were instrumental in organizing the
guilty man, Al-Megrahi -- Al-Megrahi -- to actually carry out the bombing
attack in Malta. And it's to identify these individuals and to establish
the
evidence which links those individuals and what they said at that meeting
and
in other meetings to the actual conspiracy, which must form the focus of
this
criminal investigation, which apparently continues today.
NAIDOO: OK, David Leppard, let me leave you there for just a moment to
go up to Lockerbie, in Scotland, where Walter Rodgers has some reaction
there.
Walter, what have you been hearing?
RODGERS: Hello, Anand.
Well the news of the verdict is now just slowly trickling through the
townspeople here in Lockerbie. Lockerbie is a marketing town of about
4,000 people.
One of the women who came into town to do her marketing today is Peggy
Kyle (ph) -- lives just outside Lockerbie.
Mrs. Kyle, you know the verdict: one innocent, one guilty. What's your
reaction?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I can't believe it. I really can't. I think if one
is
guilty, then obviously the other one is. And I think it's a disaster. I
really do. I
mean I think the people that were involved must have been looking for a
guilty verdict. Hopefully -- I think it's going to the civil courts now.
RODGERS: Do you consider justice was done?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
RODGERS: Why not?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because I think both of them should have
been found guilty. I can't understand the verdict, one innocent and one
guilty.
If they couldn't have found them both guilty or both innocent, why did
they
not go for a not proven case?
RODGERS: That's a quirk of Scottish law the not proven.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That is.
RODGERS: When I first told you of the verdict, you said great. What did
you mean?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I'm glad that it was out and people knew
what the verdict was. We had just missed it. I think -- I don't think people
will be happy with it.
RODGERS: Do you think -- do you think this town will ever forget what
happened here?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, no, no, never, never. The scars are still
about.
RODGERS: Where -- what do you see, how do you feel? What do people
say when the news media's not in town?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think they were all looking for a guilty
verdict. I think they all felt they should have been found guilty. I mean,
although it took place in other parts of the world, in Germany and in Malta...
RODGERS: What do you remember of that night?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That night is fixed very well in my mind. We
had gone on holiday to south of England for Christmas, and I was sitting
watching television, and suddenly the news broke. And I just sat there.
I just
couldn't believe it. And of course, we phoned home directly to see what
had
happened, and we were told, you know, that everything was absolute chaos.
RODGERS: But you're glad it's over now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Oh, yes, yes, it's been going on so long. And
it's strange, every time you come into town, you usually meet somebody
from America or one of the relatives that has come to see the memorial
at
the Christhill Cemetery (ph), and you just think of how people are always
going to be coming here, people that have lost their children. It was so
sad
-- so many young lives that were involved, all those students...
RODGERS: Peggy Kyle, thanks very much. Thank you for talking to us.
We've been talking with one of the ladies who lives in the area of Lockerbie.
She was here that night more than 12 years ago. When we asked her about
the verdict, she said she thought - she would have preferred to see both
proven guilty. She did not think justice was done.
Nonetheless, in about 45 minutes from now, some of the officials in the
town
of Lockerbie will be holding a news conference to render their judgments
on
the verdict in the Town Hall behind me - Anand.
NAIDOO: OK, Walter, thank you.
And now some of the family members have been -- of the victims -- have
been gathering in Washington, D.C., here in the United States, and they're
now talking about their reaction to the verdict. Let's listen to some of
the
comments that they're making.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
BOB MONETTI, FATHER OF VICTIM: ... go into civil suit and prove
Gadhafi ordered this damn thing.
Any questions?
QUESTION: And how hard will it be to prove...
MONETTI: I think it'll be a lot easier to prove in U.S. civil court than
it was
in Scottish criminal court. Scottish criminal court's rules are awful.
They're
very defendant favorable, and the fact that Megrahi was convicted is
fantastic.
I'm from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.
QUESTION: Could you spell your last name?
MONETTI: M-O-N-E-T-T-I.
(CROSSTALK)
MONETTI: Yes -- he was 20. And I have a little brochure which explains
dates and times and all of that kind of stuff if anybody wants one.
QUESTION: What did Rick (ph) want to do?
MONETTI: If Rick didn't want to be a reporter, I wouldn't be here. He was
at -- he was at Syracuse's Newhouse School -- and he loved -- he was a
dual major: journalism and political science. So he would have been telling
you guys what they asked me.
This certainly helps. It's a lot nicer than if they were found not guilty.
It's not
going to change anything in our house. The kids not coming home anymore.
But it is nicer that these guys were convicted. It makes it easier to carry
this
fight against Libya.
We've already talked to the State Department and the Justice Department
that we need their cooperation to convict Libya of this thing.
NAIDOO: That was Rick Monetti, the father of -- OK, that was Bob
Monetti, the father of Rick Monetti, who was 20 at the time when he was
killed in the Lockerbie bombing.
Now let's go back to Richard Blystone who's at Camp Zeist -- Richard.
BLYSTONE: Anand, we have with us again Clare Connelly of the Glasgow
University Lockerbie briefing unit, who's been following every twist and
turn
of this trial for the last nine months.
Clare, a guilty verdict on Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi shows that
the prosecution was able to put over beyond reasonable doubt a
circumstantial case?
CLARE CONNELLY, UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW: That's correct.
And certainly, the verdict comes as no surprise. There was clearly much
more evidence that set readily to prosecute. Therefore, his conviction
doesn't come as a surprise.
Also the acquittal of the second accused when there was so little evidence
is
also not a surprise today.
BLYSTONE: But this was a gossamer web of circumstance.
CONNELLY: Absolutely.
But that is present in Scottish law for a case to be based on circumstantial
evidence and for a verdict of guilty to be determined. And I think that
this
reflects the complexity of the child what it's basted (ph) in. And it's
almost
like a spider's web with the evidence being spun out.
But it was enough for the judges. They had all of the evidence and they
can
convince beyond reasonable doubt.
BLYSTONE: But now that we can talk about this, because we've been
limited to Scottish law in giving value judgments, what was convincing
to you
and presumably, then, to the judges in the prosecution's case?
CONNELLY: Well I think we're going to the base of an idea of what was
convincing to the judges when they issued their written judgment.
But in terms of what was convincing to me would be the evidence deleting
the MST facting (ph) timer between the producer's meddle and medics (ph)
of the supply to Libya, and also in particular, the identification by the
shopkeeper in Malta, of the first accused, as the person who purchased
the
clothes that were later found in the suitcase with the bomb. BLYSTONE:
And now the defense tore into both of those things, saying that the
identification was not reliable, and implying that the fragment of the
circuit
board in the clothing, there was a lapse in the record of possession of
that,
so that the evidence could have been doctored.
CONNELLY: I mean quite clearly, yes, the defense did a very good job of
vigorously cross-examining all witnesses with any significance. But obviously
that cross-examination hasn't vented the prosecution case to such an extent
that the judges are felt boned (ph) to acquit the accused.
BLYSTONE: Now under Scottish law, as I understand it, a right of appeal
is not automatic. What do you expect in that way?
CONNELLY: Well, as you see, a right of appeal is not automatic, so what
would happen to law (ph) is if the first accused wishes to appeal against
this
verdict, he has two weeks within which to lodge a notice of intention to
appeal, then a further six weeks to gather together the documents, the
grounds for that appeal. And a judge then looks at those papers and decides
whether an appeal should be had. If an appeal is granted, it goes ahead,
if
not, the accused can then have those papers reviewed again by a panel of
three judges.
BLYSTONE: Mitigation: Are you expecting anything along those lines, and
in any case, what is possible?
CONNELLY: Well, Bill Taylor (ph) said today that because his client
maintained that he was not guilty, that, therefore, there would be no plea
in
litigation. And the judges said he may wish to address them on further
matters, after he has seen the written judgment.
So, the court has now adjourned until two o'clock. When it returns at two
o'clock, the judges will be indicating, choose the minimum period of time
that
Al-Megrahi must stay before he can apply for parole.
He's receiving a month (ph) to life sentence because he's been convicted
of
murder. They've also set a minimum period. He would then be open to him
(ph) to apply for parole, but that is not automatic he would be granted
parole at that point.
BLYSTONE: Clare Connelly, the Scottish -- the University of Glasgow
briefing unit, thanks very much for being with us -- Anand.
NAIDOO: Richard, we heard some of the family members here in the
United States talk of civil action against the Libyans who are being accused.
Is there provision made for that in this process?
BLYSTONE: Provision for civil action against the accused, is there any
opening for that?
CONNELLY: Certainly, a civil case could now be heard and could be
proceeded. I now (ph) understand the American families. I might not intend
to do that, but I hope an action's already been started. That's open, too.
And I understand that the action would be against both the Libyan
government and the two accused.
And as you -- as you probably know, the British families that are intending
in
holding a press conference tomorrow. And it would appear that the -- and
they're more than inflicting (ph) the public inquiry taking place for questions
that haven't been answered in the trial could be addressed.
BLYSTONE: Anand, we've just heard on CNN that, you know, a -- this
civil action is different from our criminal one, anywhere in the world.
We
have the O.J. Simpson trial as an example.
Tell us a little bit, in general, about the rules of evidence and so on
in the civil
action against those in the criminal trial.
CONNELLY: Well, I think the most important thing is that the decision in
a
civil action is made on the -- for the -0 on the balance of probability,
the
evidence supports the case that's being presented by the pursuer. That
differs from a criminal case, where it has to be belief beyond reasonable
doubt. So, clearly, a lower standard of proof that applies in a civil action.
Also in the U.S., as in the case in Scotland, it is often to individuals
--
interested parties to lead (ph) an action for civil damages and expect
(ph) the
loss of our loved one, even if the person who's been tried for the crime
of
murdering that person hasn't quite been acquitted.
BLYSTONE: Now, let's bring that up. The Libyan regime was not in court,
but it was not out of sight either. It was in the charge.
CONNELLY: Well, that's right, exactly. It was -- it was -- Al- Megrahi
was described as someone who is part of the Libyan Intelligence Services.
I
mean, he was acting to further the request desired of the Libyan Intelligence
Services.
BLYSTONE: Clare Connelly, thanks very much.
Well, it's clear, Anand, we have not heard the last of Lockerbie.
NAIDOO: OK, Richard, let's leave you there for a moment to go to New
York.
Frank Buckley has been listening to some of the reaction from some of the
family members there -- Frank.
BUCKLEY: Well, family members are gathered in a room here at the Jacob
Javitz Federal Building, and were able to watch, at least, as the verdict
was
being announced.
They tell us that they weren't able to hear, so there was a moment of tension
inside the room. Then, when they heard the verdict of guilty, there was
cheering inside the room.
There were at least two dozen family members of victims in the room. We
don't know the exact number, but they're inside. They were happy about
the
one guilty verdict. But they also have said, at least to the two people
we've
spoken with, have said that they believe that this was a case of state-
sponsored terrorism. They're hoping that the U.S. government and the
British government will continue to pursue this case.
U.S. officials today have said that, in fact, this case is not over, and
that the
investigation does continue. That comes as good news, indeed, to the family
members of the victims, who believe that this case goes beyond the two
men
who were charged in this crime.
NAIDOO: OK, thank you, Frank.
Now, let's go back to David Leppard, who's in London. He's a journalist
for
the "Sunday Times" there, who's covered this investigation very closely.
Mr. Leppard, the -- we heard a lot of dissatisfaction on the part of some
relatives, who say that the Scottish court there, one family member
describing it as being disposed favorably towards the accused. Do you
believe that is that case?
LEPPARD: Well, I think self-evidently, it's not the case.
We're talking about the criminal Scottish court. And clearly, the evidence
has been accepted as substantially incriminating the defendants. The
evidence was accepted as being sufficiently strong, even though it was
mainly circumstantial. And that's quite a remarkable achievement for the
prosecution in this case.
I think the level of proof is, obviously, higher in a criminal case. And
if there
is civil action to take place, it should be a lot easier now for the relatives
to
establish that the Libyan government -- the Libyan Intelligence Services
were the masterminds -- the key figure behind Megrahi's action in planting
this bomb.
NAIDOO: Well, we've heard about civil action as far as the judicial process
is concerned. We've also heard from the FBI and from the attorney general's
office in the United States, saying that this case is not closed. What
do you
see happen now?
LEPPARD: Well, I think the British authorities will have to consider whether
they really want to continue a criminal investigation.
I can't see how any criminal investigation can possibly establish sufficient,
hard evidence to be put before another court.
And the reason I'm saying that is because all of the hard evidence relates
to
a conspiracy in Tripoli meetings, conversations, orders within the hierarchy
of the Libyan Intelligence Service.
Some of these orders, some of the discussion there may be in minutes, may
be in memoranda. But I imagine that most of the discussion was made in
a
way that couldn't possibly be used subsequently against Libyan Intelligence.
And certainly it would have been destroyed by now. So, all you've really
got
is the prospects. And we did in this case have one inside -- insider from
Libyan Intelligence giving evidence as a so-called "super grass," incriminating
certainly the first defendant and suggesting that the second defendant
was
also guilty, although he was subsequently acquitted.
So it's going to be a question of intelligence work here, cultivating the
inside
informants within the Libyan Intelligence hierarchy, who can actually come
forward and give evidence in a court of law. And I frankly believe that
that is
going to be almost impossible.
NAIDOO: We also heard from some of the family members, some of them
believing that the man ultimately responsible for this bombing, Colonel
Moammar Gadhafi, the leader of Libya, is going to get away with this.
Do you think that any government, either the British government or the
American government, can actually put any more sanctions on -- political
sanctions or economic sanctions, on the Libyan leader in the time -- in
the
months ahead?
LEPPARD: Well, I think it's absolutely possible. I mean, the logic of this
is
that Megrahi's been indicted. Megrahi was -- and has been convicted --
was
the head of the Libyan Intelligence Service in Malta, therefore, acting
as an
instrument of the Libyan government.
The evidence is clear that Libya was involved. Gadhafi is in charge in
Libya,
very close links to the head of his own Intelligence Services. Not clear
exactly what he said about this bomb plot, whether he was personally
involved in any detail.
There are already sanctions outstanding against the Libyan government.
But
UN sanctions were lifted as part of a deal to get these two defendants
over
to the court.
So I think there's going to be a lot of conversation, a lot of discussion,
in
London and in Washington today, about what sort of action the Western
governments involved here, who represent the victims in this case, can
take
against Libya. And we'll just have to wait and see.
NAIDOO: OK, thank you, David Leppard, for joining us from London.
So the verdict there, a unanimous verdict, three Scottish judges finding
Abdel Baset Al-Megrahi guilty of the crime. The three judges also
unanimously found not guilty Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah.
As we've said, it's been 12 years since Flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie,
Scotland. And it's been a difficult and complex path to this day of the
ruling.
To give you some perspective now on the history of the bombing, Relitza
Vasilova has this report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RELITZA VASILOVA, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The
devastation in the small Scottish town after Pan Am Flight 103, on its
way
from London to New York, exploded over Lockerbie on December 21st,
1988.
In an instant, the 259 people aboard the plane were killed, and falling
debris
killed 11 more on the ground.
But it will take almost 12 years before the families of those who died
would
see anyone brought to trial.
First, the enormous complexity of the investigation, then Libya's refusal
to
hand over suspects, would get in the way. Investigators combed more than
2,000 square kilometers, partly on hands and knees, searching for clues.
Three years after the crash, in 1991, Scottish and U.S. authorities indicted
two Libyans, Abdel Baset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa
Fhimah, for murder and conspiracy to murder.
According to the indictment, the two suspects were Libyan intelligence
agents working undercover at Malta's Luqa Airport. They were accused of
loading a suitcase with plastic explosives onto a plane bound for Frankfurt,
where the luggage was transferred to the Pan Am airliner.
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi refused to hand them over. A seven-year
struggle to get the two suspects to trial was only just beginning.
In 1992, in an effort to pressure Libya to surrender the suspects, the
U.N.
imposed travel and arms sanctions.
The next year, Libyan lawyers said the suspects say they're willing to
stand
trial in Switzerland. The U.S. and Great Britain refused.
Five years into the sanctions, in 1997, Libya offered to have the suspects
tried in a neutral venue. The U.S. and Britain rejected that offer, insisting
the
two face trial on their soil.
But a year later, the two changed their minds; trial in a neutral site,
the
Netherlands, but under Scottish law, sentences, if any, served in Scotland.
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and then-South African President,
Nelson Mandela helped negotiate the deal. Some of the victims' relatives
voiced the fear that the price of Mr. Gadhafi's approval was a secret
promise, that the investigation would not go up the Libyan chain of
command. The U.N. denies that any such deal was made.
In 1998, Libya formally agreed to the trial. And in April 1999, Al-Megrahi
and Fhimah arrived under tight security at a former U.S. military base
in the
Netherlands, declared Scottish territory for the duration of the trial.
Soon after they were handed over, the U.N. suspended its sanctions against
Libya. Many European countries were eager to start restoring links with
oil-rich Libya. Britain restored full diplomatic ties. Even Washington
suspended its sanctions against Libya. Then the proceedings began in May
2000.
Under tight security, the two suspects appeared before three Scottish judges
for a trial that would last more than eight months. Fhimah and Al-Megrahi
were prosecuted on charges of murder, conspiracy to murder, and airline
safety violations.
In a surprise move during its summation, the prosecution dropped the lesser
charges against them, and pressed for conviction on the charge most serious
and difficult to prove: murder.
One question left unanswered: Who ordered the bombing and why?
Relitza Vasilova, CNN.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
NAIDOO: David Leppard, the British journalist who has covered the crash
and investigation of the Lockerbie disaster -- we'll be talking to him
at the
top of the hour in World News.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL
800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM
LOCATED AT www.fdch.com