Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[jimbob]

"The more I read about this Mueller Rape Case business, the more convinced I am that this is a Democrat dirty trick to pull a 'reverse Kavanaugh,' trying to impugn Republicans for paying women to make up false rape claims against Mueller. Just more BS from team DNC."

-- Bill Mitchell (Oct 31, 2018)

That was a long game that the dastardly Democrats were playing then.

Making an fake that was obvious as soon as impartial observers looked at it but yet fooled the Gateway Pundit and those who believed it.

I guess the obvious implication is that it's easy to fool Trump supporters.

 

[Hellbound]

I guess the obvious implication is that it's easy to fool Trump supporters.

That's yet undetermined. Before we determine how easy it is to fool them, we have to wait for them to stop fooling themselves.

It may be a while.

 

[Rolfe]

Sigh, at least try to follow along. I know you're relatively new to the forum. About ten years ago, Rolfe thoroughly proved Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was innocent of the Lockerie Bombing. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was put in prison in part by the fake evidence presented by Assistant Attorney General Robert Mueller, who was in charge of the investigation.

Not so long ago as that, although I started looking at the case in 2009. However, Mueller didn't present any evidence at all in the Lockerbie case, being as this was a Scottish investigation and legal process and Mueller is an American. While the FBI was indeed active in the investigation they weren't leading it, no matter how they might like to present this to their own citizens. All the legal representation at the trial was carried out by Scottish lawyers, although there were US lawyers sitting in with the prosecution.

The person currently under investigation for alleged perjury in respect of presenting fake evidence to that trial is an English forensics officer named Allen Faraday. And as I said, if it was indeed the case that the item in question was a fabricated plant produced by US agents, Tom Thurman and Jack Christie are the people we need to consider.

I don't know what Rolfe's book says about Mueller. I haven't read it. You don't know what Rolfe's book says about Mueller. You've not read it either.

I'm asking you for a credible source for your claim that Mueller faked evidence in the Lockerbie investigation.

Perhaps you could link to the place where you got this information from?

Rolfe's book doesn't even mention Mueller's name.

Rolfe's book does go into quite a lot of detail about the provenance of that disputed item of evidence, PT/35b. Nevertheless Rolfe's book concludes that the bloody thing is a complete mystery and that while it can't be proved to be genuine it can't be proved to have been fabricated either.

I thought this guy was in charge of the investigation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_McDougall

First I've heard of him. The original Senior Investigating Officer was a guy called John Orr, who was succeeded by his deputy Stuart Henderson after a year or so. Various Lords Avocate over the years headed up the legal side of things, principally Peter Fraser at the time of the Fatal Accident Inquiry, Andrew Hardie (who had been lead advocate during the FAI) during most of the preparation for the trial in 2000 (until he jumped ship two months before the trial started, probably because he realised they'd made a hideous error back in 1989 and didn't want to continue with the case), and finally Colin Boyd during the trial itself.

One tends to forget there were Americans involved at all until bozos like Richard Marquise muscle on to the TV to insist that they got the right guy and no I'm not interested in anything you claim to have discovered. Mueller's name is linked to the case of course but I'm a bit hazy about what he actually did.

 

[kookbreaker]

Thanks Rolfe!

 

[Stacko]

Sounds like Baylor was using Rolfe's book the same way a drunk uses a light pole in an attempt to support themselves rather than illumination.

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose, if we ever do find out what PT/35b was and how it got into the chain of evidence, and it does turn out that it was something planted there by US agents, if may turn out that one or more DoJ lawyers knew about it. But that's a lot of ifs.

The thing has no right to be there at all, but there it is. I can't explain it. However the difficulty is that it was there at a very early stage in the investigation. It wasn't something planted a year later then provided with a fake provenance as some people fondly imagine. So if it was a plant, and US agents were responsible for it, this has some very serious implications for the case as a whole, being as it's not really possible for it to have been produced after the plane went down and seamlessly inserted into the chain of evidence less than four weeks later.

I have an open mind on all of this because every explanation I think of for that bloody fragment crashes and burns.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks Rolfe for stepping in to offer some insight.

Sounds like Baylor was using Rolfe's book the same way a drunk uses a light pole in an attempt to support themselves rather than illumination.

Except that the light pole actually can provide some support.

 

[Stacko]

Except that the light pole actually can provide some support.

Unless you're into the spins.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I don't like Mueller, because he's one of a group of American law enforcement types who were involved with the Lockerbie case and who insist loudly and often rudely that they know they got the right guy and they won't even listen to the points the "conspiracy theorists" are putting forward. (Richard Marquise, Vincent Cannistraro, Brian Murtagh and Frank Duggan are other luminaries of the genre.) But beyond knowing that he was involved in the US side of the investigation I don't know much about him.

He's not one of the names that I've heard referred to in the context of possible fabrication of evidence. Tom Thurman and Jack Christie usually take that dubious accolade. Mueller is a lawyer, not a cop or a forensics officer, so I wouldn't have thought he would be involved hands-on in faking evidence.

You may find that introducing informed opinion at this point is like trying to put out the California Wildfires with an eye dropper. But the attempt is appreciated.

 

[Ambrosia]

Rolfe's book doesn't even mention Mueller's name.


One tends to forget there were Americans involved at all until bozos like Richard Marquise muscle on to the TV

Mueller back then was a lawyer doing lawyer stuff in the US, I'd forgotten he was involved entirely until very recently. IIRC his name didn't come up once back when we were discussing the case in detail.

Rolfe's book does go into quite a lot of detail about the provenance of that disputed item of evidence, PT/35b. Nevertheless Rolfe's book concludes that the bloody thing is a complete mystery and that while it can't be proved to be genuine it can't be proved to have been fabricated either.

I am of the opinion that it's fabricated, but I can't prove it, there's not enough evidence, and boy have I tried looking for it.

I'm more than happy to discuss Lockerbie in detail with anyone until long after the cows have come home, but this is not the right thread for that.

 

[Rolfe]

Mueller back then was a lawyer doing lawyer stuff in the US, I'd forgotten he was involved entirely until very recently. IIRC his name didn't come up once back when we were discussing the case in detail.

I am of the opinion that it's fabricated, but I can't prove it, there's not enough evidence, and boy have I tried looking for it.

I'm more than happy to discuss Lockerbie in detail with anyone until long after the cows have come home, but this is not the right thread for that.

His name has come up occasionally. I saw this thread at one point and recognised the name. I'm not sure quite what he did though. He could have been one of the US lawyers that were in court with the prosecution, whom Hans Kochler criticised in his report.

With the FBI people like Marquise and Phillips, and forensic-type people like Thurman, we have some idea what they were doing. I just saw a PM sent to me a few months ago by Little Swan talking about US agents who were in Lockerbie in January 1989 (in the context of who might have planted that fragment, if it was planted), and there were four of them.

But as far as the lawyers go, they don't really come into the narrative much. I suppose where there were legal proceedings in the US like the civil action for negligence against Pan Am and the grand jury proceedings that led to the indictments, they would have been involved there. But these hearings were pretty peripheral and the US lawyers had no official role and no right to be heard in the main trial or appeals.

We're cranking up to the 30th anniversary in a few weeks and all sorts of writers and film-makers seem to be jumping on the bandwagon as usual. The stuff I've seen so far has all been meandering unoriginal re-hashing of stuff that's decades old though. I've sold about 700 print copies of my book and just over 1000 eBooks which isn't that bad for a niche topic.

The thread in Trials and Errors is still active if you want to discuss it further.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A couple of extra little tidbits about the woman who is alleged to have written the email claiming she had been offered money to make false accusations against Mueller

We decided to investigate this matter to see who could be behind this apparent hoax. First, we reached out to a phone number that this woman gave us. After calling the number, we promptly received what we viewed as a threatening text message back, which read, “You’re in over your head…. Drop this”. The message included the home addresses of two of our editors, including myself.

Then out of nowhere, we received a phone call from another number originating from the same area code, of a man who claimed to be Mike Wilcox of a company called ‘Surefire Intelligence’. He again threatened us, telling us to “stop communicating with” the woman who had contacted us previously. (Both phone numbers have since been disconnected).

Does it seem likely, then, that Wohl and Burkman are not only behind the accusations of sexual assault, but also behind the claims of payment for false accusations of sexual assault? It's hard to imagine what their game plan is or might have been.

Perhaps we'll know more if they still hold a press conference tomorrow.

 

[smartcooky]

Looks like someone has bayled with his tail between his legs!

 

[Baylor]

Sure we can prove that Megrahi was innocent and the bomb was introduced at Heathrow, a lot of that is down to Rolfes work building on what we discussed in the Lockerbie threads at JREF. There isn't enough evidence to prove much else though.

It wasn't Mueller running the show back then either. If you are looking for a smoking gun to demonstrate Mueller to be a bad person, Lockerbie isn't it.

We've established privileged white male Robert Mueller put an innocent Person of Color (PoC) behind bars to further his own career. Those interested in social justice should be up in arms and demand Mueller's head on a stick.

 

[Baylor]

I suppose, if we ever do find out what PT/35b was and how it got into the chain of evidence, and it does turn out that it was something planted there by US agents, if may turn out that one or more DoJ lawyers knew about it. But that's a lot of ifs.

It's important to note that the FBI does plant evidence and they do frame innocent people. I'm not saying they do it in every case, but they do do it. Skeptics will gladly say how American cops are corrupt and start threads about city cops planting drugs to frame innocent people. But suddenly when Federal Agents like the FBI does it it becomes a "conspiracy theory" and that allows them to hand-wave it away.

 

[I Am The Scum]

We've established privileged white male Robert Mueller put an innocent Person of Color (PoC) behind bars to further his own career. Those interested in social justice should be up in arms and demand Mueller's head on a stick.

This is unbelievably pathetic.

 

[Stacko]

This is unbelievably pathetic.

It's purely coincidental that it took Mueller investigating his favorite misogynistic racist conman to grasp at these straws, I'm sure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A couple of extra little tidbits about the woman who is alleged to have written the email claiming she had been offered money to make false accusations against Mueller



Does it seem likely, then, that Wohl and Burkman are not only behind the accusations of sexual assault, but also behind the claims of payment for false accusations of sexual assault? It's hard to imagine what their game plan is or might have been.

Perhaps we'll know more if they still hold a press conference tomorrow.

This whole thing is so bizarre.

 

[I Am The Scum]

This whole thing is so bizarre.

The press conference tomorrow should be a real show. I'd be shocked if a single, actual woman appears.

 

[LSSBB]

It's important to note that the FBI does plant evidence and they do frame innocent people. I'm not saying they do it in every case, but they do do it. Skeptics will gladly say how American cops are corrupt and start threads about city cops planting drugs to frame innocent people. But suddenly when Federal Agents like the FBI does it it becomes a "conspiracy theory" and that allows them to hand-wave it away.

Where have skeptics denied that the FBI could plant evidence?