Some of the many outstanding questions about the Lockerbie bombing may never be answered, not because the information does not exist, but because the US and British governments and their security forces are determined to keep it secret from the public ("The search for truth must go on", The Herald, May 21).

In fact, most Americans seem to have been brainwashed into believing that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi was the only person guilty of the massacre.

After the illegal shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner by a US warship some months earlier, the CIA and FBI must have been on high alert looking out for retaliation.

Yet when such an attack actually took place and they had failed to prevent it, they must have been happy to cast the blame on Libya, to divert attention away from the much more likely culprit: a revengeful Iran, probably working through a Syrian terrorist group.

That may be why the CIA interfered in the Camp Zeist trial by rewarding the Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci with $3 million for his critical identification of Megrahi. What an amazing memory he would have needed to remember the face of a brief customer buying specific clothes in his shop several years earlier, if he had not been helped by being given a magazine a few days before the trial with Megrahi's picture in it as the bomber.

Is it likely that a minor Libyan security official acting on his own would have devised and executed such a complicated plot, with so many chances of it going wrong?

The unaccompanied suitcase had to be flown from Malta to Frankfurt, then transferred to a London flight, then at Heathrow transferred still unaccompanied to the specific Pan Am flight 103, with the timer set to go off once it was airborne and hopefully over the Atlantic?

Is it not much more likely that the case was introduced at Heathrow? We now know there was a break-in to the international baggage section the previous night, yet police kept this secret for 10 years and the defence team at the trial was not told about it. No-one has explained why this was kept secret.

Why was such a popular fight to the US only half-full just a few days before Christmas? And why did several important Americans, including the US ambassador to Cyprus and a senior FBI official, cancel their bookings on the day of the flight. Could they have been tipped off about the fear of an attack? And if there were suspicions, why was the flight not cancelled or at least a special baggage check carried out?

I note the FBI now has people in Libya reportedly seeking information and written evidence from the Transitional Libyan Government. I am concerned that, if vital documents exist, they may actually disappear rather than be brought to light. We know there are already British and American secret papers the security services will not allow to be produced in court, even in closed session. What could these contain, sufficient for the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission to include them in their reasons why a miscarriage of justice may have taken pace at Megrahi's trial?

There are indeed many questions still to be answered, but I fear the political establishment and the security services on both sides of the Atlantic will do everything they can to stop this happening and prevent justice being done.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court,

Glasgow.

How dare Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont apologise on my behalf (and on behalf of the rest of the country) for the Scottish Government's decision to release Megrahi from his sentence on compassionate grounds?

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of any political party but the level of political point-scoring on this issue and the life expectancy of a terminally ill man has been stomach churning.

While I understand there is a great debate about whether this man is guilty or not, it remains a fact that he was convicted, imprisoned and released under the terms of Scots Law.

Does the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland wish to imply that the law on the compassionate release of terminally ill prisoners is wrong and, if so, what kind of society does she envisage for Scotland?

Surely the case for compassionate release is precisely that our society holds to values that are greater than those of the worst of our convicted criminals, and no-one in this country should feel any need to apologise for the proper application of our laws, even if it turns out that there had been an underestimation of the life expectancy of this one, now deceased, former prisoner.

David Gray,

2 Caird Drive,

Glasgow.

In apologising "on behalf of the people of Scotland" for the release of Megrahi, Johann Lamont does not speak for me.

Her words, which could not have come at a more inappropriate time, not only denigrate the mercy that elevates our justice system but belittle the suffering caused by Megrahi's illness.

Having a serious illness myself and having nursed my partner through cancer, I wonder how Ms Lamont thinks her remarks sound to the many Scots who have to live with such difficulties.

Whatever Megrahi may be guilty of, he has suffered far more than a prison sentence and he has a family, entirely innocent, who are suffering now. Has she no concern for them?

Jennie Kermode,

6 Melrose Street,

Glasgow.

How gracious was Dr Jim Swire's reaction to Megrahi's death compared to the unpleasant, vengeful comments of Johan Lamont ("Megrahi dead but questions live on", The Herald, May 21). Scoring political points over this man's passing is cynical and unpleasant to say the least.

If he is found to be innocent sometime in the future, which many believe, I hope she will have the good grace to apologise.

Michael Watson,

74 Wardlaw Avenue, Rutherglen.

The next time Johann Lamont feels like apologising to anyone on any subject on my behalf, I would appreciate if she would show me the courtesy of consulting me first.

I am absolutely certain that I am not alone in feeling like the victim of opportunistic behaviour.

J Wilson Maitland,

Rhuvaal,

Shore Road,

Cove.