Six grounds on which Megrahi could have been the victim of a miscarriage of justice were published for the first time by The Herald and Sunday Herald earlier this year.
The full report by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) was made public following permission from Megrahi himself.
The SCCRC findings, kept secret for five years, allowed Megrahi to proceed to appeal his conviction, but the Libyan national dropped all outstanding legal action in a bid to maximise his chances of release from Greenock Prison.
Such a move would have been necessary to secure his return home under a Prisoner Transfer Agreement, but not for the compassionate grounds route approved by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
The six grounds noted by the SCCRC included an unreasonable verdict due to uncertainty over the date on which Megrahi was supposed to have bought clothes in Malta that were found among the plane debris.
Shopkeeper Tony Gauci claimed Megrahi visited his shop, Mary's House, on December 7, 1988, but an early statement given by Megrahi – and not tested in court – found he could have been in Malta on that date, and the night before the bombing, to meet a woman friend.
The date on which the clothes were bought formed the basis of a separate ground of undisclosed evidence and a further ground of new evidence.
Mr Gauci said Megrahi resembled the man who bought clothes in his Malta shop but the SCCRC also reported undisclosed evidence concerning the identification.
The commission found Mr Gauci had a magazine with a picture of Megrahi stating he was the Lockerbie bomber three days before an ID parade in the Netherlands.
The SCCRC also raised undisclosed evidence concerning Mr Gauci's interest in financial rewards. The witness and his brother Paul received at least $3 million (£1.88m) from US justice officials after the trial.
The defence at the trial did not know he had discussed and shown an interest in reward money before identifying Megrahi. If they had, they could have challenged the credibility of the prosecution case.
The SCCRC report said: "Such a challenge may well have been justified and in the commission's view was capable of affecting the course of the evidence and eventual outcome of the trial."
This sixth ground of appeal related to undisclosed secret intelligence documents, which remain a secret.
Since the SCCRC report was made public, further information has come to light. Earlier this month, Chief Constable Pat Shearer admitted details of a break-in at Heathrow Airport, on the night the bomb might have been planted, were withheld by police for a decade.
Megrahi's first attempt at appealing his conviction was rejected in 2002.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article