AFTER the fall of Muammar al Gaddafi I met with the subsequent politicians of the interim new government.

Their position was that it was a given that because of the conviction of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, there must have been a higher Libyan input. There were important exceptions to this view, notably by their head of security.

However they made it absolutely clear that their intention was to place the blame for Lockerbie on the shoulders of Gaddafi, giving room for the implication that it had in no way been the fault of Libya herself.

Now that the conviction of Megrahi has been brought into such doubt ("CIA 'interfered in police probe into Lockerbie'", The Herald, December 16) it will eventually be reviewed either through formal inquiry or by a new appeal.

Readers will remember that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) itself found six reasons for re-examination of the verdict and that astonishing further reasons for review accumulate almost daily.

There are therefore reasons for great caution in interpreting material originating from the new Libya ("Libya appoints prosecutors on eve of Lockerbie anniversary", The Herald, December 17). At the same time we should perhaps remove the blinkers which seem to block out consideration of very different origins for the attack.

Of course, relatives would welcome any further verifiable news as to who was truly behind this dreadful atrocity, but it is to be hoped that input from the new Libya will be viewed with greater circumspection than was the evidence allegedly justifying the conviction of Megrahi in the first place.

Dr Jim Swire,

Rowans Corner, Calf Lane, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire.

THE findings of the Lockerbie investigation conducted by Jessica de Grazia, New York's former chief assistant district attorney and Phillip Corbett, who served as a high ranking anti-terrorism officer at Scotland Yard, appear to undermine the integrity of the trial of Megrahi and the verdict .

They contend that Mohammed Abu Talb played a crucial role in the atrocity and that he, not Megrahi, should have faced trial. Initially a suspect but subsequently "adopted" as a witness for the prosecution (he was granted immunity), he appears to have been taken out of the frame of suspects when the original police probe was "directed off course as a result of government interference". They elaborated on that finding: "In our experience the decision to intervene would have been made at the highest level of government, most likely by a top executive of the Central Intelligence Agency." Talb was subsequently convicted of terrorist offences in Holland and Denmark and spent 20 years in jail.

Their findings, the tainted evidence of the Gauci brothers (the Crown's main witnesses) and the observations of the UN-appointed observer (Hans Koechler) to the effect that US officials interfered in the presentation of the evidence to the court, are more than enough to undermine the integrity of the proceedings that led to Megrahi's conviction.

The prosecuting authorities and the political establishment should respond to the emergence of such evidence and material by, at the very least, investigating the implications of the material. But what we get from the legal and political establishment, as expressed by a Scottish Government spokeswoman is: "Any issues raised in relation to the conviction itself must be a matter for a court of law. Mr Megrahi was convicted in a court of law, his conviction was upheld on appeal, and that is the only appropriate place for his guilt or innocence to be determined".

That exercise in complacency simply ignores the possibility that the entire proceedings in the lead-up to the trial in the court of law and the trial itself were tainted and tarnished by the credibility of the witnesses and the machinations of a foreign government. In my view, that possibility is simply ignored by the establishment's need to protect the integrity of the proceedings and the reputation of Scotland's legal system.

Thomas Crooks,

81 Dundas Street, Edinburgh.

I AM not surprised by the latest report that the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing may have been prejudiced and diverted off course by the actions of US security services. What does surprise and dismay me is the dogged reluctance of successive Scottish Governments and the Scottish legal establishment to facilitate the court case being reopened.

Despite all the concerns and clear indications of evidence being suppressed or tampered with, witnesses bribed, and government documents deliberately withheld from the defence at the Camp Zeist trial, it seems that our politicians and our justice officials remain determined to obstruct any further legal action.

The bland official response to the latest revelations is that "it remains open for relatives of Mr al Megrahi, or others, to ask the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to refer the case back to the court for a further posthumous appeal, which ministers would be entirely comfortable with".

But could the Megrahi relatives afford the heavy legal costs involved, or be eligible for legal aid? Might they even be prevented from doing so by their own Libyan government, possibly under pressure from US or UK intelligence sources? And who or what is preventing the SCCRC itself from deciding to refer the case back to the appeal court, rather than wait for foreign relatives to ask it to do so?

Political cover-ups are rarely successful in the long run, and the truth usually comes out eventually.

But meanwhile there is still very serious concern about the fairness of the trial and the conviction of Megrahi, casting a dark shadow over the reputation of Scotland's once-renowned justice system. This weekend marks the 25th anniversary of the horrific event in the skies over Lockerbie and the murder of 270 innocent people. I suggest that finding a way to re-open the legal process would be the most appropriate way to mark this date, and would be to the great credit of Scotland.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.