John Ashton

John Ashton, author, journalist and film researcher

John Ashton is a British author, journalist and film researcher who is focused on the Lockerbie bombing of 21 December 1988, a subject he has studied since 1993. From 2006 to 2009 John Ashton was a researcher with the legal team representing Abdelbaset al-Megrahi who was convicted on 31 January 2001 of the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103.

John Ashton's film and books have been strongly criticised by armchair commentators Patrick Haseldine and Barry 'Baz' Walker. Charges include peddling a "drug conspiracy theory", promoting the "flight booking subterfuge" and failing to mention Haseldine's personal obsession, the UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, the highest profile victim of the Lockerbie bombing.

Ashton's critique of Patrick Haseldine

Patrick Haseldine is the primary author of this page (with the exception of this section, which was written by Ashton) and of just about everything else written about Lockerbie on Wikispooks. Ashton wrote a brief critique of Haseldine, which appears towards the bottom of Haseldine's otherwise self-penned Wikispooks profile.

Ashton's latest book 'Scotland's Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters' (published in October 2013) contains the following passage on Haseldine:

"Former Foreign Office employee and Essex café owner Patrick Haseldine has for 25 years claimed, without evidence, that the bombing was carried out by the South African Bureau of State Security (BOSS) in order to kill the UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson, who, like Botha’s party, was flying to New York for the signing of the Namibia peace accords. In his prolific online writing Haseldine has also claimed that I was employed by BOSS to conceal its role in the bombing, and that members of the campaign group Justice for Megrahi work for MI6. At the time of writing, he is facing legal action for another of his outlandish libels."

Maltese Double Cross

Full article: The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie

The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie

John Ashton was researcher for Allan Francovich's 1994 documentary film The Maltese Double Cross - Lockerbie about the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the full 2-hour 36-minute version of which is on YouTube.

The film made the bogus claim that a South African delegation including foreign minister Pik Botha and defence minister Magnus Malan had been booked on Pan Am Flight 103 of 21 December 1988, but had received:

"a warning from a source which could not be ignored," and changed flights.

In June 1996, the South African parliament was told by justice minister Dullah Omar that Pik Botha's delegation were not warned to change flights since they had not been booked to travel on the fatal flight.

Ashton has never published a correction to this "flight booking subterfuge".

Flight Booking Subterfuge

al-Megrahi convicted, Bernt Carlsson targeted on Pan Am Flight 103

This is the relevant narrative in The Maltese Double Cross:

"The South Africans booked on Pan Am Flight 103 cancelled just before departure. Along with Pik Botha, General Malan the Defence Minister, and General van Tonder, Head of the Secret Service, BOSS, and other senior government officials.

"Botha, Malan and van Tonder confirm this change in travel arrangement to British businessman Tiny Rowland. They tell him the source of the information was of the kind that could not be dismissed.

"Botha rebooks on the earlier flight Pan Am 101. General van Tonder and two other members of BOSS cancel their trip altogether."

Ashton's claim that Pik Botha's party had been booked on the Lockerbie flight was shown to be false by the now retired South African MP Colin Eglin of the Democratic Party. In a letter to a British Lockerbie victim’s family dated 18 July 1996, Mr Eglin wrote of questions he had put to South African Justice Minister Dullah Omar in the National Assembly.

On 5 June 1996, Mr Eglin asked Mr Omar if Pik Botha and his entourage:

"had any plans to travel on this flight (Pan Am Flight 103) or had reservations for this flight; if so, why were the plans changed?"

In reply in the National Assembly on 12 June 1996, Justice Minister Omar stated he had been informed by the former minister of foreign affairs (Pik Botha) that shortly before finalising their booking arrangements for travel from Heathrow to New York, they learned of an earlier flight from London to New York: namely, Pan Am Flight 101. They consequently were booked and travelled on this flight to New York. Mr Eglin went on to write in his letter to the Lockerbie victim’s family:

"Since then I have done some more informal prodding. This has led me to the person who made the reservations on behalf of the South African foreign minister Pik Botha and his entourage. This person assures me that he and no-one else was responsible for the reservations, and the reservation made in South Africa for the South African group was originally made on Pan Am 101, departing London at 11:00 on 21 December 1988. It was never made on Pan Am 103 and consequently was never changed. He made the reservation on Pan Am 101 because it was the most convenient flight connecting with South African Airways Flight SA 234 arriving at Heathrow at 07:20 on 21 December 1988."

Mr Eglin gave the victim’s family the assurance that he had 'every reason to trust the person referred to' since he had been given a copy of 'rough working notes and extracts from his personal diary of those days.' In his letter Mr Eglin wrote:

"In the circumstances, I have to accept that an assertion that the reservations of the South African group were either made or changed as a result of warnings that might have been received, is not correct."

Drug conspiracy theory

The film also propounded a "drug conspiracy theory" as the motive for the bombing, a theory which has been ridiculed by Lockerbie commentator Barry Walker as follows:

"Having watched the version televised by Channel 4 before the 'Lockerbie debate' many times I found this version of The Maltese Double Cross fascinating. It is far longer than the televised version and is significantly different.

"I have long been a critic of The Maltese Double Cross and Cover-up of Convenience written by the film's researcher John Ashton and Ian Ferguson.

"I have no objection to the first 1 hour and 36 minutes which was, to be honest, really very good.

"My objection is to the introduction of the "drug conspiracy theory" between 1.36 and 2.16, in particular the section 1.55-2.16 and above all the blatantly fraudulent 'hotel room scene' featuring Oswald Le Winter between 2.12.50 and 02.15 (which was longer than the televised version and mentioned the character 'Lovejoy'.)

"In the far briefer televised version of Steve Donahue's 'evidence' he is described as an 'undercover Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent' with no mention of his being a convicted trafficker. The section concerning 'Mr Goldberg' and his supposed meeting with Khalid Jafaar is greatly different.

"While some of the 'evidence' is this forty-minute section (1.36-2.16) is demonstrably fabricated, my point is that even if these allegations of 'controlled' drug deliveries is true, is it of any relevance to the bombing?

"I would also point that the only evidence in the film that drugs were recovered at Tundergarth was an article in Private Eye magazine for whom John Ashton works.

"I also note that the evidence of Linda Forsyth that Matthew Gannon was sitting in 1st class was expunged although elsewhere the film claims on two other occasions that he was (once in Le Winter's staged 'evidence'). The official version is that he was in Business Class.

"My central criticism of Cover-up of Convenience is that most of the book was devoted to 'proving' this fraudulent section of the film. Without their obsession with Khalid Jafaar (which continues to this day in the pages of Private Eye) Messrs Ashton and Ferguson might have written an important book.

"Indeed without the "drug conspiracy" section The Maltese Double Cross might have been a good film.

"Pity Francovich didn't grasp that the Lockerbie bomb was introduced at Heathrow."

By the same author

John Ashton has written the following books and articles on the Lockerbie bombing:

"Cover-Up of Convenience"

Following the Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s conviction for the Lockerbie bombing on 31 January 2001, John Ashton co-wrote a book entitled "Cover-Up of Convenience: The Hidden Scandal of Lockerbie" with fellow journalist Ian Ferguson. According to a review of the book in The Observer on 17 June 2001:

"If 'Cover-Up of Convenience' occasionally loses narrative focus, that is hardly surprising bearing in mind the difficulties with co-authors on opposite sides of the Atlantic, and the speed with which this book has been produced."

According to the blurb:

"Based on many years’ research, this book demonstrates that the truth was buried to protect the hidden agendas of Western policy in the Middle East, demolishing the case against Libya, it presents shocking evidence that the terrorist masterminds lay in Iran, Syria and Lebanon and also raises questions against the Western intelligence services."

Very strange omission

Although "Cover-Up of Convenience"’s 'Index' runs to 14 pages and the name of the highest profile Lockerbie victim Bernt Carlsson is nowhere to be found, the 'Acknowledgments' page nonetheless states:

"A multitude of people warrant acknowledgment, far too many, in fact, to list here. The relatives of the Lockerbie victims deserve particular thanks, chief among them Martin and Rita Cadman, Pam Dix, John and Lisa Mosey, Sanya Popovic and Jim and Jane Swire."

"Fellow journalists gave generous help, including Jan-Olof Bengtsson, Ronen Bergman, John Coates, John Cooley, Con Coughlin, Don Devereux, Rob Evans, Paul Foot, Drago Hedl, Bjorn Hygstedt, David Jessel, Shelley Jofre, David Johnston, Jürgen Krönig, Gunter Latsch, John Loftus, Neil Mackay, Joe Mifsud, David Milne, Mats-Eric Nilsson, Margaret Renn, Murdoch Rodgers, Frank Ryan, Kjetil Stormark, Phillip Wearne, Terry Wrong and David Yallop."

A very strange omission, since:

• Sanya Popovic is the former fiancée of Bernt Carlsson;
• John Coates interviewed Bernt Carlsson in The Case of the Disappearing Diamonds; and,
• Jan-Olof Bengtsson wrote a series of newspaper articles (in Swedish) about Bernt Carlsson's secret meeting in London with De Beers on the very day of the Lockerbie bombing.

"Megrahi: You are my Jury"

John Ashton, author of the 2012 book "Megrahi: You are my Jury"

In 2012, John Ashton's book "Megrahi: You are my Jury" was published. Dr John Cameron reviewed John Ashton's 2012 book, as follows:

"I read John Ashton's 500-page tour de force "Megrahi: You Are My Jury" at a sitting and though I would not expect anyone else to do so it is an invaluable 'source' for the public. His dissection of the trial in general and the 80-page judgement of Lords Sutherland, Coulsfield and MacLean in particular make compelling if disturbing reading.

"The British public, media and politicians have a spectacularly poor knowledge of science and technology as debates over such things as windfarms and GM crops makes clear. It would be unreasonable to expect our Law Lords, classically educated at public schools where the teaching of science was bad and technology non-existent, to be any better. It was therefore only to be expected they would struggle to comprehend the weakness of the forensic evidence or to understand the operation of Frankfurt airport's X-ray security. Yet, as the UN observer wrote, that does not excuse their reliance on the partial evidence from wholly unreliable witnesses to reach a verdict 'beyond any reasonable doubt'. The Crown's case was that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah, acting together, smuggled the bomb on board a feeder flight from Malta in unaccompanied baggage. The Prosecution insisted they were either both innocent or both guilty however the only evidence linking Fhimah to this scenario depended on the evidence of one witness. This was Majid Giaka, a CIA informant, and by the time Fhimah's counsel, Richard Keen, had finished with him it was clear Giaka was both a liar and a fantasist.

"I thought the trial was over and though it still dragged on with increasing absurdity I was not surprised when the Crown closed that Keen submitted Fhimah had no case to answer. However, I had not counted on Alastair Campbell, who led the Crown's case, informing the court he was dropping the conspiracy charge i.e. separating al-Megrahi and Fhimah. This was allowed but conspiracy was the basis of the case so I asked a leading figure in our judiciary if they could do that and he said the Law Lords could do what they liked.

"When I replied that was illogical and unfair he archly responded, 'Show me where it says Scots Law must be logical and fair,' and an historic miscarriage of justice was inevitable."

"Was Libya really behind it?"

John Ashton contributed to this 2012 article featuring Edwin Bollier which appeared in the Swiss magazine Beobachter.

Scotland's Shame

Published on 3 October 2013

John Ashton's book "Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters" was published by Birlinn on 3 October 2013. It features a remarkable foreword by Dr Jim Swire. The advance blurb says:

"The bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over the small Scottish town of Lockerbie in December 1988 was one of the most notorious acts of terrorism in recent history. Its political and foreign policy repercussions have been enormous, and twenty-five years after the atrocity in which 270 lost their lives, debate still rages over the conviction of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, as well as his controversial release on compassionate grounds by Scotland’s SNP government in 2009. John Ashton argues that the guilty verdict, delivered by some of Scotland’s most senior judges, was perverse and irrational, and details how prosecutors withheld numerous items of evidence that were favourable to Megrahi. It accuses successive Scottish governments of turning their back on the scandal and pretending that the country’s treasured independent criminal justice system remains untainted.

"With numerous observers believing the Crown Office is out of control and the judiciary stuck in the last century, politicians must address these problems or their aspirations for Scotland to become a modern European social democracy are bound to fail."

Independence and Lockerbie

Dr Swire asserted that the unresolved Lockerbie question will prove to be a block on Scotland's independence:

"Scottish justice survived the Act of Union with England with its independence intact: perhaps since then it has been a talisman of Scotland's reputation as an independent nation capable of running its own affairs. If that is so, Scotland - my country - would do well to address the apparent problem of the impenetrable arrogance of her prosecuting authorities that seem to have blighted her justice system ever since it became clear that the Lockerbie trial had been defective.

"It is best addressed from within Scotland herself and may well be a factor which will block independence until it is resolved, for an independent community with an obscured and mistrusted justice system can never be a healthy community.

"We would wish healing, not harm, for Scotland and all her people, but the arrogant refusal to consider fault has dragged on so long that the cure is not likely to be found within the timescale now scheduled for the independence debate. It is to be hoped that the refusal of the current Scottish Government to intervene with an independent inquiry, despite clearly having the powers required to do so, is not driven by motives of party advantage."

Jo G takes Dr Swire to task

Lockerbie campaigner Jo G took Dr Swire to task:

"I am sorry, very sorry, to say I have to disagree with Jim Swire on this point.

"There are many people within even the SNP who know the SNP betrayed Scotland on Lockerbie in every way imaginable and yet will not condemn them for it. Shame on them I would say. I have condemned them on this blog repeatedly for it. For they are truly to be condemned. MacAskill's conduct in particular, on Lockerbie, is utterly disgraceful.

"Tory hands were filthy on Lockerbie. Labour hands were filthy too.

"SNP hands are now toxic for they were in charge at Holyrood when they could have made a difference and chose not to. Instead MacAskill came out to say this, that and the other, on the day he announced Megrahi was going home.

"He also omitted a great deal. (His office was fingered when it came to the pressure put on Megrahi to drop his appeal.) MacAskill also overreached himself by declaring 'the original verdict was sound' even when the SCCRC had already stated there were six grounds to challenge that conviction. (Why would that not bother him?)

"Salmond has uttered the same sentence. Neither of them had the authority to overrule the SCCRC. Both of them have left some of their supporters, including this writer, wondering about their commitment to a truly just Scottish Justice System.

"MacAskill went on to alter the remit of the SCCRC. The SCCRC exists to examine cases, scrutinise them even, 'without political or judicial interference.' MacAskill did away with that when he put through 'emergency' legislation hidden under legislation designed to deal with another case entirely. His aim was to put a Judge in charge of the SCCRC. Such a move destroyed the whole point of having an SCCRC. That action alone was, solely, about Lockerbie and the Megrahi conviction. Let no supporter of the SNP, no matter how passionate, attempt to suggest otherwise. It also proved just how closely the SNP were working with Westminster to keep the lid on the truth behind Lockerbie! Shame on them!

"I am sorry Jim Swire is linking this with independence and the referendum. It could have been linked in 2007 but not now. For had the SNP had the balls to take on the establishment in 2007 and said that appeal would be heard no matter what, the truth about Lockerbie, or at least about the very dodgy conviction, may have come out and that would have taken them forward. Alas, in 2007 the SNP decided to work with a UK government which was committed to keeping the truth about Lockerbie buried. SNP members have failed to challenge Salmond on Lockerbie. More fool them. For ultimately the SNP has proved to be as dishonest, on Lockerbie, as the Unionist Parties. There is nothing to be proud of in that.

"The other thing, of course, is that a significant number in Scotland are so disengaged from politics anyway that there is no hope of them even voting in the referendum. They are more likely to vote on who should win 'X Factor'."

And rebuking Dr Morag Kerr who had earlier said: "Whether or not the current Scottish government have behaved well as regards Lockerbie just isn't an issue", Jo G said:

"Oh it absolutely is an issue. Some of us challenged them on it.

"I recall challenging you on this very blog when you defended the SNP!

"You forgive them so willingly. I cannot.

Riposte from "Rolfe"

Morag Kerr countered by saying it would be "insane" to vote against the SNP and Scottish independence because of such an "essentially unrelated matter" as Lockerbie:

"I just don't see the issue. No matter how much you hate the SNP for whatever reason, independence isn't about the SNP, it's about Scotland's future. To vote against something so immeasurably beneficial just because you have a quarrel with the main proponent over an essentially unrelated matter is insane.

"And as Robert said, if you're picking the future with the better likelihood for a resolution, independence is the way to go. The union isn't working, for that or for anything else. (Apart from sending failed Labour and LibDem politicians to the Lords that is, Lord Jeremy Purves, pardon me while I vomit.)

"I don't know what's going on behind the scenes in the Scottish government over Lockerbie. I'm seriously hacked off about it, just like anyone else, but I don't claim to know how and why it happened.

"But, even to be able to make sure the right people are first in front of the wall when the revolution comes, you actually have to have a revolution. You don't get one by voting No, that's for sure."

Jo G told "Rolfe" she had a habit of missing the point:

"I do not hate the SNP. You missed the point. You always do when it suits.

"Why are you seeking to make money out of a book which kills, stone dead, the SNP position on Lockerbie and still defending them?

"Don't patronise me. Have a word with your own conscience. If you have one."

Book reviews

A customer review of 'Megrahi: You Are My Jury: The Lockerbie Evidence' on the "Amazon" website says:

"Nowhere in John Ashton's book does he mention Lockerbie's highest profile victim United Nations Assistant Secretary-General and UN Commissioner for Namibia, Bernt Carlsson.

"John Ashton has previously ignored Bernt Carlsson in his 1994 film 'The Maltese Double Cross' and in the 2001 book 'Cover-up of Convenience' that he co-authored with Ian Ferguson.

"Whether John Ashton's new book 'Scotland’s Shame: Why Lockerbie Still Matters' - that was published by Birlinn on 3 October 2013 - actually features the targeting of Bernt Carlsson on Pan Am Flight 103 remains to be seen."

John Ashton adds: the Amazon review in question was in fact written by Patrick Haseldine under the guise of Enid Le Sah "Ellie" (Enid Le Sah being Haseldine backwards). His review of the Morphy Richards Power Steam Elite 42223 steam iron is also well worth a read (highlights include: 'easily gives a professional smooth finish to ironing of all types'). Unusually for Haseldine it a) makes no mention of Bernt Carlsson and b) contains no bizarre libels.

Other publications

In 1988, John Ashton co-wrote a leaflet entitled Blood on their Rands: an investigation into the worldwide activities of the British Tyre & Rubber Co Ltd (BTR), with the help of the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa.

Website

John Ashton's website is here.

See also

• Lockerbie Official Narrative
• Cameron's Report on Lockerbie Forensic Evidence
• The Framing of al-Megrahi
• The How, Why and Who of Pan Am Flight 103

External links

• "Lockerbie Spotlight on John Ashton"