Middle East 16 July 2010 The Lockerbie bomber? A likely story . . . In all the furore over Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, we have lost sight of one important fact. Sign up for our weekly email * Print HTML So, the British ambassador to the US says that the government "deeply regrets" the release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie atrocity. Meanwhile, US senators are calling for an inquiry into allegations that BP lobbied the British government to let Megrahi go in order to protect their interests in Libya. News of his release on compassionate grounds a year ago prompted a similar wave of indignation. The papers bleated about Megrahi showing no compassion to his victims, that this was not "justice", and that the government was ignoring the victims of the bombing. This post from the Telegraph's Con Coughlin was fairly typical. What is rarely mentioned amid all the outrage is that there is considerable doubt over Megrahi's guilt. As the late Paul Foot pointed out, having sat through the whole of Megrahi's trial in the Netherlands in 2001, the prosecution's case was farcical. That Megrahi felt the need to write 300 pages about his innocence is odd -- one ought to have sufficed. To summarise, Megrahi is meant to have planted a bomb on a plane in Malta, which then travelled on to Frankfurt, and then on again to Heathrow, before finally exploding on Pan Am Flight 103 in the sky above Lockerbie. We are supposed to believe, then, that the bomb got on to three planes in a row without being detected. It seems a lot more likely that the bomb was planted at London than anywhere else. In their judgment, the three judges at the trial also pointed out that there was nothing that proved Megrahi had put a bomb on the plane in Malta. They noted: "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 [Air Malta] is a major difficulty for the Crown case." What's more, Megrahi was apparently aided by a conspirator, yet his co-accused at the trial was unanimously acquitted. The prosecution's star witness was Tony Gauci, a Maltese shopkeeper, who claimed to remember Megrahi buying clothes from his shop. These same clothes apparently found their way into the case in which the bomb was concealed. Gauci also said, however, that he remembered it raining on the day Megrahi came in, yet meteorological records show this was not the case. This alone does not discount his testimony, but it must give pause for thought. His claim to be able to identify a particular customer many months after he came into his shop is much more difficult to sustain. Again, the court expressed its reservations, saying that "Mr Gauci's initial description to DCI Bell would not in a number of respects fit the first accused" (Megrahi). Perhaps those calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of this man's release should dig a little deeper into how he was convicted in the first place. › Football matters: for some, this World Cup changes everything Subscribe from just £1 per issue More Related articles Douglas Carswell leaves Ukip to become independent MP Labour is a pioneer in fighting sexism. That doesn't mean there's no sexism in Labour Why isn't Labour putting forward Corbynite candidates?