So, you’re a reporter and you need to batter out five hundred words on Lockerbie. You’re not sure if Megrahi’s guilty but you’ve little time for research and your editor – the bastard – lumped you with a damn restrictive spec. How can you induce the reader to accept he did the deed? Well, you could blithely assert that he’s “the Lockerbie bomber” – certitude papering over gaps where doubt could lie and grow. Still, your journalistic heart – while crusted – hasn’t turned to stone. No, you feel you should do better. Well, you might point out that Scottish judges did convict the Libyan. Yes, their case was limp, challenged by experts and, indeed, rejected by the Scot’s Review Commission. (Whatever happened to that appeal? Oh, never mind. No time to think.) But surely their opinion counts for something? Does it? Hrm. Okay. You could still borrow that Times columnist‘s idea of writing that as someone who doubts al-Megrahi’s guilt was foolish on a separate issue he, er – must be guilty. That could make a hint of sense after one more double gin. Ah, but what’s this? You find out that Libya seems to have accepted blame; paying the victim’s families billions in compensation. You could write something like this (from the Post & Courier)…

The mass murderer, who made a triumphal return to Libya, spent the anniversary day of his release quietly at home receiving visitors, including the son of Libyan ruler Moammar Gadhafi. Libya has paid billions in reparations to victims’ families in acknowledgement of its role in the bombing, but Col. Gadhafi has never expressed the slightest remorse.

Defenders of the Camp Zeist verdict often cite Libya’s seeming admission of guilt. There’s just a tiny flaw with this: Libya has not admitted guilt. Seven years ago Gaddafi paid out billions to the families of Lockerbie victims and accepted “responsibility for the actions of [his] officials“. (Note: that coquettish sentence doesn’t specify the actions.) This charade of atonement was offered in return for diplomatic ties and the lifting of economic sanctions. Soon, of course, Gaddafi, Bush and Blair were the finest of chums.

Blameless men have pleaded guilty to avoid long sentences. It wouldn’t take Atticus Finch to spot the parallels here. In 2004 Shukri Ghanem, the Libyan PM, appeared on the Today programme and claimed his nation had “bought peace” in offering compensation…

Q: Another concern in Britain, from the relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie bombing, is that Libya has not actually apologised for what happened, it has simply paid, or agreed to pay, compensation. Why has Libya not actually apologised, said that you’re sorry that you were behind this act?

A: Because it is a case that we came to a conclusion that we reached an agreement in which we feel that we bought peace. We, after a while and after the sanctions, and after the problems we have faced because of the sanctions, the loss of money, and we thought that it was easier for us to buy peace, and this is why we agreed on compensation. Therefore we said, let us buy peace, let us put the whole case behind us and let us look forward.

Q: So payment of compensation didn’t mean any acceptance of guilt?

A: I agree with that, and this is why I said we bought peace.

This was echoed four years later by Gaddafi’s son, Saif. Speaking to Conspiracy Files he said that “we wrote a letter…but it doesn’t mean that we did it!“

Q: So, to be very clear on this, what you’re saying is that you accept responsibility but you’re not admitting you did it…

A: Of course.

Q: That, to many people, will sound like a very cynical way of conducting your relationships with the outside world.

A: What can you do? Without writing that letter, we would not be able to get rid of the sanctions.

Q: So the statement was just wordplay.

A: Yes.

Q: It wasn’t an admission of guilt?

A: No.

I am not suggesting their denials are proof of innocence. Yet they make the “acceptance of blame” seem as persuasive as a case by Lionel Hutz. It doesn’t take much faith to see this: their admission to the crime of, er, falsely admitting to crimes was made without a clear incentive. In 2003, however, their gestures towards attrition were rewarded with friendship, belonging and oodles of cash. They’ve still not admitted guilt. By the way, it’s quite disturbing that we might face condemnation if our governors accepted guilt on our behalf. Al-Megrahi has always denied that he’s to blame, whatever Libyan officials say, retract or “look forward” to.