Mr Black said he believed the prosecution had "a very, very weak
circumstantial case" and he was reluctant to believe that Scottish judges
would "convict anyone, even a Libyan" on such evidence. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1152550.stm

Monday, 5 February, 2001, 15:25 GMT 
Gaddafi to give Lockerbie 'evidence'

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is due to reveal fresh evidence on
Monday, which he says will clear the Libyan agent convicted last week of
the Lockerbie bombing. 
Colonel Gaddafi says the evidence will prove that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al
Megrahi is innocent of the 1988 bombing in which 270 people died. 

Libya's defence of Al Megrahi - a former Libyan intelligence agent who
received a life sentence for the bombing of the Pan-Am aircraft over
Lockerbie - received a boost after a Scottish legal expert said the
verdict was obtained on "very, very weak" evidence. 

A Libyan official said the opinion showed that the case was a "racist
pretext" to prolong nine years of sanctions against the country. 

The three Scottish judges who heard the case found Al Megrahi's alleged
accomplice, Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah, not guilty. 

Colonel Gaddafi said last week that the judges had three options - to
acquit Al Megrahi, resign or commit suicide. 

Libyans flocked to public meetings on Monday in anticipation of Colonel
Gaddafi's statement, leaving the country at an almost complete standstill. 

The announcement coincides with Libya holding three days of meetings known
as basic people's congresses. 

Correspondents say two possible scenarios are being discussed in Tripoli: 

Colonel Gaddafi could produce evidence that Washington put pressure on the
Scottish judges to convict Al Megrahi
Or he could produce evidence that another non-Libyan perpetrator carried
out the bombing. 
However, there is scepticism outside the country that hard evidence will
emerge at this late stage. 

'Astounded' 

Robert Black, the Scottish law professor who devised the format of the
Netherlands-based trial, was quoted on Sunday as saying he was "absolutely
astounded" that Al Megrahi had been found guilty. 

Mr Black said he believed the prosecution had "a very, very weak
circumstantial case" and he was reluctant to believe that Scottish judges
would "convict anyone, even a Libyan" on such evidence. 

The view, published in British newspapers, echoes that of some of the
families of UK victims of the Lockerbie bombing, who are calling for a
public inquiry to find "the truth of who was responsible and what the
motive was". 

Protests 

Wednesday's verdict sparked angry protests in Libya on Saturday, as
Washington and London demanded the Libyan Government accept responsibility
for the atrocity and pay compensation to the victims' families. 


The protesters condemned what they called a "CIA-dictated" verdict and
demanded compensation for the victims of the 1986 US air raids on Tripoli
and Benghazi. 

Al Megrahi's 15-year old son, Khaled, took part in a demonstration on
Saturday, holding a placard reading: "My father is innocent." 

The opposing camps - Washington and London on the one hand and Libya and
its supporters on the other - have become increasing polarised since the
Lockerbie verdict was issued. 

London and Washington are demanding that Libya accept responsibility for
the Lockerbie bombing and pay compensation to the families of the victims
before sanctions can be lifted. 

On Behalf of the relatives of the Lockerbie victims, Washington wants
Libya to pay $740m (500m) in compensation, or about $3m (2m) for each
victim. 

Libyan newspapers 

A BBC correspondent in Tripoli, Frank Gardner, says Libya is on
tenterhooks, waiting to learn what the new evidence Colonel Gaddafi has
promised to reveal could be. 

The Libya press has continued to attack last week's verdict. The Libyan
daily, Al Fatah, accuses the judges of yielding to political pressure from
the United States. It says the judges were stricken with political
Alzheimer's Disease. 

In another paper, the Green March, the editorial referred to what it
called Britain's history of imperialism, aggression and human suffering. 

The paper accused British newspapers of carrying out an organised campaign
to harm Libya. 

It blamed what it called disturbed writers without loyalty to Britain, who
were influenced, it says, by Zionist circles. 

But in a note of conciliation, the Libyan editorial added that
Anglo-Libyan relations were recovering. It said it felt sincerely that the
British government was keen to reinforce those relations.