But as Ambrosia says, it's all pretty academic. Megrahi is related to some pretty unpleasant people. Megrahi is acquainted with some pretty unpleasant people. Indeed, there are a lot of unpleasant people in Libya. Is Megrahi himself one of them? Who knows. I wouldn't die of shock, but we simply have no evidence. He is not one of those who ever appeared on the radar in connection with any of the other atrocities we know were committed by the Libyan regime.
As an aside, I wonder how Bunntamas herself would react to the accusation that she
must have carried out some atrocity, personally, solely on the grounds that some of her extended family, or some people she worked with, were implicated in crime?
I get tired saying it, but no matter how many evil deeds were done by Megrahi's relations, or Libyans in general, we can only accuse Megrahi of being "the Lockerbie bomber" if we have some DIRECT EVIDENCE LINKING HIM TO THE ACTUAL CRIME.
There is none. Absolutely zero. Nothing at all. Zilch. Nada.
The only, single, sole piece of evidence linking Megrahi to the Lockerbie bombing was the assertion that he was the man who bought the clothes from Tony Gauci. We've presented
a positive gallery of pictures showing how the word "uncertain" doesn't even begin to describe the confusion surrounding this identification. Just about any middle-aged clean-shaven man with dark curly or frizzy hair was liable to be fingered as "resembling" the purchaser.
For comparison, look at these two pictures.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_03/hussmenezsplit1710_468x353.jpg
In Tony Gauci's world, might these have been picked out as the same person from a photo-line-up, especially if the pictures were less well-defined than shown, and in black and white? (Hint: left is Hussain Osman and right is Jean Charles de Menezes.) Dammit, if either of these had rather longer hair, they'd do quite well as the mystery shopper as well!
However, the primary, crucial decision from which everything else flows in the Zeist case is that the clothes were purchased on 7th December. Unless that was the day of purchase, Megrahi
could not have been the purchaser, because he
wasn't there.
The court's decision to choose 7th December was made independently, apparently without considering Megrahi's lack of an alibi for that day and that day only. It completely flew in the face of the evidence regarding the football match, the weather, and the absence of Christmas lights. It would be a stretch even to say there was an outside chance it
might have been 7th December.
There was of course a day that fitted the evidence much better, 23rd November. However, the court ignored that, latched on to the
almost outside chance of 7th December, and declared they were quite satisfied that the purchase had in fact occurred on that day. Beyond any reasonable doubt. Absolutely. We're quite sure about this.
What????? 
SCCRC said:
the Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988.
In the Commission’s view, [....] the purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that the applicant was in Malta.
Whatever else the SCCRC dismissed or ignored, its crucial finding was right on the money. Because the assumed date of the purchase from Mary's House is the single key finding from which everything else in the Zeist judgement flowed. And it was perverse to the point of irrationality.
It was only after making this perverse finding, that the court proceeded to note that Megrahi had been around on that day. Fancy that! So even though the identification was as shaky as hell, and in fact added up to a non-identification ("Not the man I saw in my shop...."), the judges concluded that because Megrahi had been physically in the vicinity on the (already-decided) day of purchase, he bought the clothes. Beyond any reasonable doubt. Absolutely. We're quite sure about this.
Then what? Megrahi was at the airport in Malta on the morning of the Lockerbie disaster, catching a plane for Tripoli. At the same time, a plane was leaving for Frankfurt, where it was possible to connect (by way of a four-hour stopover) with another plane that then connected with PA103. The police had become convinced the bomb had travelled on this plane, but despite intensive and prolonged investigation they were never able to find any evidence to support this conviction. (On the contrary, the lack of any evidence from an investigation that determined begins to look like pretty good evidence of absence.)
The judges concluded that the bomb suitcase was smuggled on board the Frankfurt flight, despite the complete and utter absence of any evidence for that, and indeed "considerable and quite convincing evidence that that
could not have happened".
Why?
Because the man they had already decided bought the clothes was at the airport at the time. [I'm not making this up, you know.]
No, he didn't have any suitcase with him. He didn't check in any luggage. He didn't go airside. He didn't have any accomplice. All he did was get on a plane for Tripoli. But he was the man who bought the clothes, we already determined that, so somehow, we know not how, the bomb
must have been smuggled on to that plane. And Megrahi
must have had something to do with it, even though we can't in any way say how he managed that.
That's that, beyond any reasonable doubt. Absolutely. We've quite sure about this. Guilty, life imprisonment.
But if the purchase didn't take place on 7th December, as the SCCRC investigation concluded, then Megrahi didn't buy the clothes.
And if Megrahi wasn't the man who bought the clothes, there is NO reason at all to conclude that the bomb travelled from Malta that morning.
Which makes Megrahi someone who was getting on a plane a thousand miles and more from where a completely different plane blew up, eleven hours later.
This is what has to be confronted by anyone trying to make a case for Megrahi's guilt. Not a lot of irrelevancies about who his brother-in-law happens to be.
Rolfe.
