Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[McHrozni]

Me neither really. If it's Thanksgiving there, happy one.

Thanks, but it's not

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

I'm probably not as informed as you, but that's not the point I was trying to make. If the integrity of investigation is in question, then every piece of evidence can be made to show a conspiracy: if it shows the guilt of the accused in the investigation, it can be said it was planted. If it doesn't, it shows there is an actual conspiracy involved.

The integrity of the investigation is most certainly in question. As this thread is specifically about Tony Gauci's evidence, I really don't want to digress into all that. It's been well aired elsewhere.

Again, the trick is to find direct evidence something was wrong with the investigation and then show (or at least indicate) where and why certain artefacts were introduces as a part of conspiracy. You're doing it the other way around, you find artifacts that would be introduced by a conspiracy had it taken place, and label them evidence of a conspiracy, where there is a perfectly adequate explanation for them without a conspiracy. This doesn't mean the evidence you present can't show conspiracy, but in itself, it does not stand.

You know, while it's refreshing to have someone come along and question the issue, it gets a bit wearing to be told how to approach the matter by someone who quite clearly doesn't have much familiarity with the evidence.

Given that we know there was something wrong with the investigation, and that the two main planks of the case for the Official Version are extremely shaky indeed if not actually broken, the point is to try out some other speculative explanations for the evidence we have, and see if they fly. Now the way to shoot down such speculation isn't to declare that the speculation is illegitimate, it's to find the evidence to counter it. That's what I'm trying to do in this thread.

The exact list of what Gauci says was bought in this memorable transaction is relevant, with his various changes of mind and when these happened. The exact list of the items found with apparent blast damage, and when they were identified, is also important. There are also records of stock at that shop, and when items were ordered, that might support one point of view or another. This evidence is where the answer may lie, not in just blindly deciding that any fanciful explanation that happens to fit in with the Official Version must be credible.

Maybe I'm being lazy in trying to recruit others to look at this evidence with me, but it's working in a couple of other threads.

I believe this confirms my point as at least possible.

Yes, of course it's possible. Just as it's possible that the Maltese clothes in the bomb bag came from Abu Talb's factory-sourced purchases, and Gauci managed to convince the investigators that they'd been bought in his shop by some sort of Clever Hans trick. Arguing about which is more probable (and to be honest, the point about the timing of the explosion is for the timer thread, this isn't the place to get into that) can only get us so far. Looking at the evidence is likely to be more constructive.

Your point is based on the premise that the terrorist knew what could be recovered from an air crash and what could be pieced together from a wreckage and also that he tried to avoid such an investigation from suceeding. The first one is a significant leap of faith, it is entirely plausible he thought that the bomb and the subsequent crah would destroy any evidence he left behind anyway, and he didn't think he needed to bother too much with details.

The second premise you're coming from is plausible, though not entirely certain.

In other words, your premise is not falsifiable: had the crash happened over open seas, that could just as easily be interpreted as the terrorist knowing exactly what he had to do to conceal his identity. That can just as easily be considered evidence of a conspiracy as a terrorist not knowing how far he had to go to conceal his identity.

I don't see it as necessary to know exactly what evidence might remain from an aircraft crash on land, to propose that anyone planning such a crash is likely to take all reasonable steps to minimise the possibility of identifiable evidence remaining.

Are you familiar with the fact that prosecutors don't always present the case in a perfect way either? Assume that the prosecutor was wrong on this count, but the same people he accused still planted the bomb: legally, the prosecutions' case may (or may not) be dead, but that doesn't mean those people didn't commit the terrorist act they were being accused of.

I'm seriously losing you here. You're suggesting that even if we accept that Megrahi doesn't appear to be the person who bought the clothes, and even though there appears to be no way the bomb bag could have been got onto KM180 (by him or by anyone else), maybe he's guilty anyway? Even though the court accepted the submission of "no case to answer" against Fhimah, and he was acquitted, somehow maybe he did it anyway?

I'm sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. And to do that, you really need to find out what we're actually talking about, I'm afraid.

Again, I do agree this is a bit weak on the official side. On the other hand, it is not impossible at all. I have shown at least two possibilities which would both explain how that happened, and could run in parallel to reinforce each other (unusually good memory + complexity that makes him stand out). Another possibility is that the shopkeeper remembered him by coincidence.

Look, I don't think anyone has suggested it's impossible for Gauci to have remembered this transaction, and got a lot of the details right. However, I don't think you even know what Gauci said, let aone that you've made any useful suggestions.

Do you think it was raining in Sliema in the early evening of 7th December, even though meteorology records from only 3 miles away record not a drop? Do you think the purchase is more likely to have taken place before the Christmas lights were lit, as Gauci said in his first version, or after, as he said after the investigators (who knew Megrahi had an alibi for the earlier date) had pressed him on the matter? Do you think that Gauci, who was certain the transaction occurred midweek, would have remembered if the following day had been a public holiday when his shop was shut?

Do you think that someone who is officially "an apple short of a picnic" is really likely to have a phenomenal memory? (I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not something I'd want to base a case on.)

Do you see any complexity in Megrahi that makes him stand out? 5 feet 8 inches, average build, 36 years old, photos show a generally unremarkable man. Have you compared that to Gauci's original description of the purchaser as being over 6 feet tall, 50 years old or more, and heavily built (I think the word was "burly")? What do you think of Gauci's later disclaimer on this point that he wasn't good at estimating height and build - considering that the man sold clothes for a living?

Do you appreciate that Gauci never positively identified Megrahi, but merely said he resembled the purchaser - based on head-only mug-shots taking no account of height or build, and even then usually qualifying it by saying he was too young? That by the time he finally saw the man in the flesh, half the population of Camp Zeist could have picked him out of a line-up, so widely had his photograph been distributed? Oh yes, and 12 years had corrected one of the problems.

What is your view of the role of Paul Gauci, continually urging his brother to make an identification that the police would like, and talking to the police about money and rewards? Paul who was given $1 million of his own for keeping Tony up to the mark, on top of the £2 million Tony got for helping secure a conviction? What about all the inducements offered to the Gaucis during the interview process - free holidays in Scotland just for starters?

Have you read the reports by the psychiatric experts in human memory who have looked at Gauci's multiple and changing statements and pointed out the multiple problems? Do you realise that certain primary procedural errors were made that would render the exercise wide open to the "Clever Hans" effect?

'Cos if you've considered all these issues, I'd be very grateful if you'd discuss the specifics of them. But if you haven't, then I respectfully submit that vague handwaving about "it's still possible he did it anyway" isn't going to cut a lot of ice.

You're making two mutually exclusive arguments here: either it would be expected that the purchase could be traced, in which case this argument stands, but your argument about the shopkeepers' memory is destroyed; or the claim about the shopkeepers' memory stands, but then this argument is destroyed - it is indeed a good way to conceal yourself to do it this way.

Brand new clothes can be traced to a store at best. You're talking about them being traced to a person. With a cash transaction, those are two different things, yes?

I'm very well aware that there are two sides to this question, both of which have to be considered. That's not the same as making mutually exclusive arguments.

It's a question of probabilities. Look at it from the point of view of the terrorist. Is it probable that the owner of a small retail shop in a holiday resort out of season, who serves a customer last thing in the evening when the shop is empty, and the customer buys an unusual assortment of goods without seeming to take any care in selecting his purchases, will be able to identify that purchaser later (maybe only a few weeks later, remember)? Well, no, I wouldn't think it probable. But would I think it possible? You bet your bottom dollar I would! I'm hyped up, I'm planning serious international mayhem, I'd want to leave as little to chance as possible. So frankly, I'd go to a charity shop or two, on a busy weekend.

But on the other hand, look at what actually happened. The shopkeeper isn't actually questioned until nine months after the purchase. A whole summer season has come and gone. And yet he remembers! Well, he remembers selling the items, he says (though the details do get quite a lot less certain in subsequent interviews). Can he, reliably, recognise the purchaser again? (If he can't, and knows he can't, is he going to say so, with the inducement of a large amount of money on one side and his brother nagging at him on the other?)

Seriously, what do you think?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. You have an indication something might be amiss, but no evidence whatsoever it actually is.

Please familiarise yourself with the evidence, and then come back and defend that last point, if you still want to.

Does the circumstantial evidence fit this? Is the man convicted someone who would have the means and the motive to commit such a crime? Does other evidence concur? I'm fairly certain the answer is yes.

On what grounds are you "fairly certain"? I keep coming back to your apparent lack of familiarity with the evidence, all of which is circumstantial by the way. If indeed you do know what that evidence is, would you mind actually discussing the specifics rather than this vague hand-waving?

A criminal investigation very rarely focuses on just one piece of evidence, but the prosecution sometimes does. This is not indicative the investigation was faulty, although defence sometimes tries to paint that picture.

You don't actually know anything about this, do you?

What is your opinion of Majid Giaka? Do you think he was telling the truth, even though the court threw his evidence out as being a pack of lies? On what grounds do you come to that conclusion?

Do you think luggage tray 8849 really did contain a piece of luggage that flew into Frankfurt on KA180? How do you square that with the evidence that there were no unaccompanied or unaccounted-for bags on that flight?

Do you agree that the Bedford/Kamboj suitcase is irrelevant? As is the break-in at Heathrow airport the evening before the crash? (If that was so irrelevant, do you know why that evidence was withheld from the original trial?)

No actually, don't answer these - or not in this thread. Each of these is worth its own thread, and of course the unaccompanied bag from Malta has one already.

In two of the other threads, evidence has been dredged up which knocks down a number of speculative theories. It looks as if Bogomira Erac might have been telling the truth both times even though it appeared she'd said two different things. It looks as if the MST-13 fragment might really have existed in the chain of evidence in May of 1989. That's how we're whittling this down. By looking at the available facts. Not by refusing to look at the available facts.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

The integrity of the investigation is most certainly in question. As this thread is specifically about Tony Gauci's evidence, I really don't want to digress into all that. It's been well aired elsewhere.

Well, fine. Nearly all evidence presented here makes perfect sense from the terrorists' point of view. It can be made to make sense if he was being framed, but the same could be said for any criminal investigation that produces suspects.

You know, while it's refreshing to have someone come along and question the issue, it gets a bit wearing to be told how to approach the matter by someone who quite clearly doesn't have much familiarity with the evidence.

The evidence you presented is consistent with a terrorist attack as described in the official version of events. You can certainly hide behind "other evidence", but I don't see how this helps your case: the evidence you present here is consistent with both variants, therefore in the question between one or another, is not strongly indicative of either.

Given that we know there was something wrong with the investigation, and that the two main planks of the case for the Official Version are extremely shaky indeed if not actually broken, the point is to try out some other speculative explanations for the evidence we have, and see if they fly. Now the way to shoot down such speculation isn't to declare that the speculation is illegitimate, it's to find the evidence to counter it. That's what I'm trying to do in this thread.

Fine, go ahead, but the evidence you presented is flimsy at best.

The exact list of what Gauci says was bought in this memorable transaction is relevant, with his various changes of mind and when these happened. The exact list of the items found with apparent blast damage, and when they were identified, is also important. There are also records of stock at that shop, and when items were ordered, that might support one point of view or another. This evidence is where the answer may lie, not in just blindly deciding that any fanciful explanation that happens to fit in with the Official Version must be credible.

That's true, but not every question you pose about it is credible, either. Thus far, you presented one questionable descision on behalf of the terrorist, which is the timing of the blast. Given that the bomb still destroyed the plane, this isn't a very strong argument to make. If the said other evidence supports a conspiracy, then fine, but the other evidence presented here neither supports nor excludes it.

I don't see it as necessary to know exactly what evidence might remain from an aircraft crash on land, to propose that anyone planning such a crash is likely to take all reasonable steps to minimise the possibility of identifiable evidence remaining.

Yes, this I agreed earlier, is likely. On the other hand, it is also likely he believed the force and heat of the blast were already sufficient to destroy the said evidence, add the scattering of a 10 km fall and the rescue and recovery efforts would supprt that further.
I imagine that if he knew what he knows now, he'd time the blast to two hours later. He didn't know all that, however, it's not a difficult mistake to make.

I'm seriously losing you here. You're suggesting that even if we accept that Megrahi doesn't appear to be the person who bought the clothes, and even though there appears to be no way the bomb bag could have been got onto KM180 (by him or by anyone else), maybe he's guilty anyway? Even though the court accepted the submission of "no case to answer" against Fhimah, and he was acquitted, somehow maybe he did it anyway?

No, I'm suggesting that even if it can't be legally proven he didn't commit a crime, it doesn't mean he didn't commit it. Legally, he'd be a free man of course, but that doesn't mean he didn't do the crime, just that not enough evidence was presented in court to convict him. This could be because he didn't commit the crime, or because the investigation didn't uncover the evidence, or because he destroyed the evidence of the crime sufficiently to make it impossible to prove.

This goes for any crime. I know legally not being proven something and not doing something are the same, but in reality, they are not. Court mistakes are a painful reality.

Do you think that someone who is officially "an apple short of a picnic" is really likely to have a phenomenal memory? (I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not something I'd want to base a case on.)[//quote]

I certainly agree this is a less than optimal way to prosecute someone.

Do you see any complexity in Megrahi that makes him stand out? 5 feet 8 inches, average build, 36 years old, photos show a generally unremarkable man. Have you compared that to Gauci's original description of the purchaser as being over 6 feet tall, 50 years old or more, and heavily built (I think the word was "burly")? What do you think of Gauci's later disclaimer on this point that he wasn't good at estimating height and build - considering that the man sold clothes for a living?

I'm not Gauci, so no, I can't say if he has any remarkable characteristics. There is nothing obvious to anyone, but if he strongly reminded him of someone from his life, that would be enough - even if he didn't remember who it was.

I've deleted a few comments, because I tihnk I'd just be repeating myself.
The evidence you presented here is not inconsistent with a terrorist attack. The Gaucis' testimony is questionable and implausible, but not impossible. This, in itself, does not prove a conspiracy to do, well, anything. It could be used to explain a conspiracy if it were proven, but that's where it ends.

It's a question of probabilities. Look at it from the point of view of the terrorist. Is it probable that the owner of a small retail shop in a holiday resort out of season, who serves a customer last thing in the evening when the shop is empty, and the customer buys an unusual assortment of goods without seeming to take any care in selecting his purchases, will be able to identify that purchaser later (maybe only a few weeks later, remember)? Well, no, I wouldn't think it probable. But would I think it possible? You bet your bottom dollar I would! I'm hyped up, I'm planning serious international mayhem, I'd want to leave as little to chance as possible.

Sure, I agree on this point. By the way, this also lends credence to Gaucis' testimony. You just said it's possible his identification of the shopper was accurate. Not very likely, I agree, but you can't have it both ways.

So frankly, I'd go to a charity shop or two, on a busy weekend.

Good idea. But for the reasons desribed above, it actually undermines your argument.

On what grounds are you "fairly certain"? I keep coming back to your apparent lack of familiarity with the evidence, all of which is circumstantial by the way. If indeed you do know what that evidence is, would you mind actually discussing the specifics rather than this vague hand-waving?

Do you think luggage tray 8849 really did contain a piece of luggage that flew into Frankfurt on KA180? How do you square that with the evidence that there were no unaccompanied or unaccounted-for bags on that flight?

Do you agree that the Bedford/Kamboj suitcase is irrelevant? As is the break-in at Heathrow airport the evening before the crash? (If that was so irrelevant, do you know why that evidence was withheld from the original trial?)

No actually, don't answer these - or not in this thread. Each of these is worth its own thread, and of course the unaccompanied bag from Malta has one already.

I didn't come here to discuss all the specifics of the said bombing, but of the evidence you presented. I do agree some of the evidence presented is dodgy. That doesn't mean buying a few random clothes to go in the suitcase with the bomb is indicative of anything, instead it makes good sense from the terrorists point of view.

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

[snip repetition of previous posts]

I didn't come here to discuss all the specifics of the said bombing, but of the evidence you presented. I do agree some of the evidence presented is dodgy. That doesn't mean buying a few random clothes to go in the suitcase with the bomb is indicative of anything, instead it makes good sense from the terrorists point of view.

As I said, I started the thread to discuss the clothes purchase at Mary's Shop, and the evidence of Tony Gauci. However, I started it to discuss the specifics of that, which you haven't even come close to touching.

I don't recall presenting any evidence, as such. I presented a range of speculations, for discusson, in the light of the evidence which exists. Now if you don't want to examine these speculations, for whatever reason, then that's fine.

You seem to me to be saying that you feel speculating about other possible explanations is illegitimate, so long as there is even the remotest possibility that the person convicted actually did it - even to the point of declaring that even if the evidence against him was false or misinterpreted, that's OK because maybe he did it anyway but we don't have that evidence!

That's your prerogative. However, posting lengthy contributions which actually amount to little more than handwaving, doesn't really advance anything. If you could even explain to us why you think it's likely that the mystery shopper was indeed Abdelbaset al Megrahi, that would be helpful.

However, you're not even going that far. You seem to be saying that you don't want to examine the evidence, but you object to speculation about the interpretation anyway.

Look, if you can explain to me why you think it's likely that Megrahi was the purchaser of these clothes in Mary's House on 7th December 1988, based on the evidence available, then I think we have a discussion. But if you're just going to keep sayng "well, I don't see why he shouldn't have been", then it's all a bit of a waste of time.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

You seem to me to be saying that you feel speculating about other possible explanations is illegitimate, so long as there is even the remotest possibility that the person convicted actually did it - even to the point of declaring that even if the evidence against him was false or misinterpreted, that's OK because maybe he did it anyway but we don't have that evidence!

Heavens no. By all means, discuss other options and evidence for them, present them however you wish. However, some - in fact, the majority - of evidence (or however you call it) you presented in favor of that option here is, in fact, falls in line quite well with the prosecutions' case, whereas you claimed it is heavily inconsistent with that case.
It is not. That doesn't mean the prosecutions' case is necessarily correct, nor does the fact it is consistent with a different narrative mean it is necessarily wrong.

That's your prerogative. However, posting lengthy contributions which actually amount to little more than handwaving, doesn't really advance anything. If you could even explain to us why you think it's likely that the mystery shopper was indeed Abdelbaset al Megrahi, that would be helpful.

However, you're not even going that far. You seem to be saying that you don't want to examine the evidence, but you object to speculation about the interpretation anyway.

I object to the speculation, when it says it "makes no sense" for a terrorist to do, whereas I believe and can demonstrate it actually makes sense. The fact he put in new clothes is a prime example. True, second hand stuff from a charity shop might be a better choice, but you can't say only the very best descisions make sense.

Look, if you can explain to me why you think it's likely that Megrahi was the purchaser of these clothes in Mary's House on 7th December 1988, based on the evidence available, then I think we have a discussion. But if you're just going to keep sayng "well, I don't see why he shouldn't have been", then it's all a bit of a waste of time.

Rolfe.

This would considerably expand the specter of the debate. I'll see if I can read through the evidence available over the weekend or something. I don't see how such changing of the subject is productive to this end of the debate, however.

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

Heavens no. By all means, discuss other options and evidence for them, present them however you wish. However, some - in fact, the majority - of evidence (or however you call it) you presented in favor of that option here is, in fact, falls in line quite well with the prosecutions' case, whereas you claimed it is heavily inconsistent with that case.
It is not. That doesn't mean the prosecutions' case is necessarily correct, nor does the fact it is consistent with a different narrative mean it is necessarily wrong.

You still seem to be under the impression that I posted evidence. I did not. I posted speculation about what might actually be behind the Gauci evidence, if (as seems extremely likely) the person he apparently identified was not in fact the purchaser. This took the form of "brainstorming" as many possibilities as I could think of, including the frankly unlikely. Noting that a brainstorming session has come up with some unlikely scenarios doesn't negate the exercise as a whole.

I object to the speculation, when it says it "makes no sense" for a terrorist to do, whereas I believe and can demonstrate it actually makes sense. The fact he put in new clothes is a prime example. True, second hand stuff from a charity shop might be a better choice, but you can't say only the very best descisions make sense.

We don't know what was going on in relation to that purchase. Looking at all considerations, including that fact that it was a strange thing to do, is not on the face of it unreasonable.

This would considerably expand the specter of the debate. I'll see if I can read through the evidence available over the weekend or something. I don't see how such changing of the subject is productive to this end of the debate, however.

You misunderstand. Asking you to defend the assertion that Megrahi purchased the clothes is not changing the subject, it is rewinding for the benefit of someone who has just come in. If Megrahi was indeed the purchaser, or probably the purchaser, then indeed speculation is a bit academic. However if he wasn't the purchaser, or probably wasn't the purchaser, then what do we have but speculation?

The key to showing that speculation is unjustified, is to show that Megrahi was probably the man who purchased these clothes.

Rolfe.

 

[GlennB]

The key to showing that speculation is unjustified, is to show that Megrahi was probably the man who purchased these clothes.

Rolfe.

And the converse is also true.

Showing that Megrahi was very unlikely to have been the man purchasing the items justifies speculation as to who - if anybody - actually did.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't expect McHronzi or anyone to quote all of a long post of mine and respond to every point, obviously. However, after realising that I was rather missing responses to the points I'd been most hoping would be addressed, I went through my earlier post to see what he's chosen not to respond to.

Here's some of it.

Do you think it was raining in Sliema in the early evening of 7th December, even though meteorology records from only 3 miles away record not a drop? Do you think the purchase is more likely to have taken place before the Christmas lights were lit, as Gauci said in his first version, or after, as he said after the investigators (who knew Megrahi had an alibi for the earlier date) had pressed him on the matter? Do you think that Gauci, who was certain the transaction occurred midweek, would have remembered if the following day had been a public holiday when his shop was shut?

Do you appreciate that Gauci never positively identified Megrahi, but merely said he resembled the purchaser - based on head-only mug-shots taking no account of height or build, and even then usually qualifying it by saying he was too young? That by the time he finally saw the man in the flesh, half the population of Camp Zeist could have picked him out of a line-up, so widely had his photograph been distributed? Oh yes, and 12 years had corrected one of the problems.

What is your view of the role of Paul Gauci, continually urging his brother to make an identification that the police would like, and talking to the police about money and rewards? Paul who was given $1 million of his own for keeping Tony up to the mark, on top of the £2 million Tony got for helping secure a conviction? What about all the inducements offered to the Gaucis during the interview process - free holidays in Scotland just for starters?

Have you read the reports by the psychiatric experts in human memory who have looked at Gauci's multiple and changing statements and pointed out the multiple problems? Do you realise that certain primary procedural errors were made that would render the exercise wide open to the "Clever Hans" effect?

But on the other hand, look at what actually happened. The shopkeeper isn't actually questioned until nine months after the purchase. A whole summer season has come and gone. And yet he remembers! Well, he remembers selling the items, he says (though the details do get quite a lot less certain in subsequent interviews). Can he, reliably, recognise the purchaser again? (If he can't, and knows he can't, is he going to say so, with the inducement of a large amount of money on one side and his brother nagging at him on the other?)

Seriously, what do you think?

What is your opinion of Majid Giaka? Do you think he was telling the truth, even though the court threw his evidence out as being a pack of lies? On what grounds do you come to that conclusion?

A lot of very specific questions, all ignored in favour of remarks such as, perhaps Megrahi reminded Gauci of someone else (even though that has never been suggested), and the real cracker, just because the evidence isn't good enough to convict someone doesn't mean they didn't do it.

I gave an awful lot of hints in that post about the nature of the important questions raised by the evidence. But McHronzi doesn't seem to want to address any of them. He just wants to dream up some scenario which he imagines might support the Official Version, even though he doesn't even know what the Official Version actually is.

Is this scepticism, I ask myself?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

And the converse is also true.

Showing that Megrahi was very unlikely to have been the man purchasing the items justifies speculation as to who - if anybody - actually did.

It would be very useful to have someone conversant with the evidence put forward the case that Gauci's identification of Megrahi was probably correct. I've yet to see anyone do it. Even the judges seemed rather at a loss, resorting to the peculiar logic that they believed him because he was hesitant and unsure and unwilling to make a definite statement. When we finally persuaded Richard Marquise to elaborate on his standard position that there was a shedload of evidence, all he managed was to say that the judges went with it so he doesn't have to explain any further.

The SCCRC said they had identified six counts where they believed there might have been a miscarriage of justice, but they only told us about four of them. They were mostly about Gauci, questioning the judges' persistent preference for going for the less likely possibility every time, so long as that was the one that favoured Megrahi as the purchaser.

As you say, if we lose that identification, it opens up so much to speculation. Who did buy these clothes? Was there even a mystery shopper at all? How much of Gauci's testimony is actually the Clever Hans effect? What was the role of the Maltese police, who appear to have more or less escorted the Scottish police directly from the clothes manufacturer to Mary's House?

I hope we might at least be able to narrow down the possibilities if we look more closely at the actual evidence.

And I'd like to point out to McHronzi that just as it's possible for a guilty person to go free if the evidence isn't good enough, it's also possible for an innocent person to be convicted. Blindly repeating "but even if most of the evidence was wrong or misinterpreted, maybe he did it anyway", isn't much of an argument.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

In view of some contributors who may or may not be fully aware of the SCCRC's (Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission) finding made in relation the original trial and judgement at Camp Zeist, it is perhaps worthwhile reacquainting ourselves with the some of the findings made, thereby resulting in the 2nd Appeal for Megrahi which was in process until dropped in order to aid his application for compassionate release.

The report runs to over 800 pages, of which only 14 pages were made public, and determined 6 grounds on which to refer the case to the appeal court, of which only 4 grounds were made public. The act of restricting elements of the appeal decision and it's grounds for appeal are unprecedented.

I think everyone would welcome new contributions for or against to the OP assertions and the questions that it legitimately raises. This thread, in relation to the Pan Am 103 tragedy over Lockerbie, and more specifically the vital evidence given by Tony Gauci throughout the investigation and at the trial itself, and as determined by the SCCRC, together with a growing body of opinion throughout the wider World, that there were many problems and issues surrounding Guci's evidence. These are important issues that deserve at the very least further discussion and investigation, if not a full public inquiry.

Below are excerpts from the SCCRC statement on recommending Megrahi's case to appeal and which relate precisely to this thread.

2.8
Of the remaining grounds, some of which
resulted from the Commission’s own investigations, the Commission has
identified 6 grounds where it believes that a miscarriage of justice may have

occurred and that it is in the interests of justice to refer the matter to the court
of appeal.

5.1
The following is a brief summary of some of the Commission’s main
findings on the grounds of review which formed the basis of the grounds of
referral:

• A number of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant
challenged the reasonableness of the trial court’s verdict, based on the
legal test contained in section 106(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure
(Scotland) Act 1995. The Commission rejected the vast majority of
those submissions. However, in examining one of the grounds, the
Commission formed the view that there is no reasonable basis in the
trial court’s judgment for its conclusion that the purchase of the items
from Mary’s House, took place on 7 December 1988. Although it was
proved that the applicant was in Malta on several occasions in
December 1988, in terms of the evidence 7 December was the only
date on which he would have had the opportunity to purchase the
items. The finding as to the date of purchase was therefore important
to the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the purchaser.
Likewise, the trial court’s conclusion that the applicant was the
purchaser was important to the verdict against him. Because of these
factors the Commission has reached the view that the requirements of
the legal test may be satisfied in the applicant’s case.

• New evidence not heard at the trial concerned the date on which the
Christmas lights were illuminated in the area of Sliema in which Mary’s
House is situated. In the Commission’s view, taken together with Mr
Gauci’s evidence at trial and the contents of his police statements, this
additional evidence indicates that the purchase of the items took place
prior to 6 December 1988. In other words, it indicates that the
purchase took place at a time when there was no evidence at trial that
the applicant was in Malta.

• Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates
that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci
picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a
magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view
evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close
proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of
the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

• Other evidence, not made available to the defence, which the
Commission believes may further undermine Mr Gauci’s identification
of the applicant as the purchaser and the trial court’s finding as to the
date of purchase.

Full document (PDF file) : http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks, Buncrana, that was a very timely reminder.

Maybe McHronzi will declare that even if Gauci has no clue what the purchaser of the clothes looked like, that doesn't mean it couldn't have been Megrahi. But that isn't the point. Alongside the questionable identification evidence we have the evidence that the purchase Gauci is trying to describe took place on a day when Megrahi was proved to be elsewhere.

Maybe McHronzi will declare that even if someone other than Megrahi bought the clothes, that doesn't mean Megrahi couldn't have put the bomb on the plane. This, however, ignores the fact that Gauci's identification evidence is the only thing that actually links Megrahi to the bombing. If the identification is reliable, then details that would otherwise be irrelevant can be made to look suspicious - such as the fact that he was at Luqa airport on the morning of 21st December, or that he had business dealings with Edwin Bollier. However, if the identification falls, so do these other points - they literally become irrelevant.

McHronzi, how many hoops are you prepared to jump through in your quest to defend the Official Version without actually doing any homework on it?

Rolfe.

ETA: I think the homework should include these documents.
Professor Timothy Valentine Professor Steven Clark

 

[Rolfe]

Buncrana, what do you think of the possibility that Gauci's evidence was largely a result of a "Clever Hans" situation - I don't just mean the picking out of Megrahi after what seems to have been quite a lot of prompting, I mean the sale as a whole?

He was first approached by the local police, it seems, who must have been searching for Maltese shops stocking the particular Maltese-manufactured clothes found at Lockerbie. I don't know if we have any information on how they went about this. Presumably they had lists of retailers from the manufacturers, and visited those shops asking about possible purchases. I don't know how many shops they visited where the shopkeeper said, sorry, haven't a clue.

Evidently, they eventually found Tony "sandwich short of a picnic" Gauci, who didn't say he hadn't a clue. He starts to describe a purchase, and a purchaser. But what was he describing? How much did the Maltese police know about the specifics of the clothes, and how much might he have been feeding off their knowledge even then? (Did they mention an umbrella? A tweed jacket?)

How sure are we that he was really remembering selling the clothes in the bomb bag, as opposed to building a house of cards supplied by the investigators, on the foundation of a memory of a purchase that had nothing to do with PA103? Maybe the purchase David Wright witnessed?

I know there are some aspects (the umbrella and the tweed jacket) that point to the purchase really being of the clothing in question. I'm not entirely convinced though. There is evidence of receipts and supplier orders to support some of this, but have you any opinion on where the best source for this information is? I don't know whether there's anything there that would support a purchase likely to be of the PA103 items, or whether it was only looked at to see if it could assist in fixing the date.

For myself, I'm as reasonably certain as I can be that whatever happened, Megrahi didn't buy those clothes. (At least until McHronzi comes and explains how I'm wrong about that.) However, I'm not sure if we know whether we have to think about who did buy them, in Mary's House, on 23rd November, or whether there is genuine doubt about whether anything from Mary's House actually ended up in that suitcase at all.

I'm conscious of the peculiar nature of the purchase in the context of packing a terrorist device (someone in another thread said it sounded like a man with more money than time buying Christmas presents), and I'm also conscious of the incongruity of suggesting Abu Talb might have been the purchaser (which seems to be the line the police were originally pursuing) when Abu Talb already had a stack of Maltese clothes he got from the factories.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Poor McHrozni. Sorry mate, you do fail here, but its okay to sit back and learn. It's a hard issue to get into for most folks.
ETA: I do appreciate tho your earnestness and to your credit, if I understand, you agree at least that:
1) The alleged sequence of Megrahi's Malta-centric plot is less than optimal from a strategic POV and
2) Gauci's testimony and identification are less than ideal as evidence.
If these are both true assessments then I think we can move forward together.

You still seem to be under the impression that I posted evidence. I did not.

That's exactly what I almost complained about a bit back. We haven't even barely got started here. There's a lot out there, solid articles, primary sources, the videos, and so far just a few links and a lot of general talk on opinions and attempted debunk-ish sophistry. That's fine too, but we're on page 2 now. There's lots to look at, but what does anyone say to some raw trial questioning of Mr. Gauci? I think it took days to get it to where the judges were satisfied.

I'd also be curious what traces we have of the various police interviews, or even a list of how many there were, and when, and so on. A real skeptic, as I think McHrozni was trying to say, is aware of their own bias and that it can lead to seeing things that aren't there. But one also looks at the evidence closely to see what's there, what they see there or think they might see, anything, as a start.

 

[Rolfe]

What I want to do is figure out where we actually are, as clearly as we can.

With the MST-13 timer, thanks mainly to Dan O., we figured out that it hasn't been substituted after the earliest record of its existence, and that unless the red-circle photo's provenance is doubtful (which we don't know), it was genuinely present in the chain of evidence on 12th May 1989. This is a solid advance which aids discussion enormously.

With Bogomira, we established that although she seems to have told two separate stories, this is probably not the case (just reporting variation), and whatever the truth of what she was saying, the Frankfurt police were chasing baggage records for KA180 as early as February 1989. This is also a solid advance which helps to narrow down the possibilities.

So far, we haven't made any progress with Tony. I'd like to know whether the clothes found at Lockerbie actually did come from his shop, or whether it's possible he's simply responded to a lot of leading questions with the answers he thought the police wanted, and which would get him a nice fat reward. I suspect we can figure this out, but we haven't really started.

I don't know what McHronzi was trying to argue, to be honest. He just kept saying "I have shown that there are possible explanations (some quite fanciful) which might support the general "Libya did it" story, although I'm not really sure what that entails." It's a fault I see with many posters on here. If they see an argument which might be supportive of something woo, or a CT, or anything like that, they immediately leap in with counter-arguments rejecting the woo or the CT, even though they actually have no idea what they're talking about, and no grasp of the case they're arguing against.

I hope McHronzi will do some homework, and come back and discuss this from an informed position. However, his immediate accusation that looking at whether or not Megrahi had been identified as the mystery shopper was changing the subject, wasn't encouraging - as that is in fact the basis for the entire thesis. Believe Megragi was probably the purchaser, end of story. However, believe Megrahi was not, or was unlikely to have been, the purchaser, and many possibilities open up.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I'd also be curious what traces we have of the various police interviews, or even a list of how many there were, and when, and so on. A real skeptic, as I think McHrozni was trying to say, is aware of their own bias and that it can lead to seeing things that aren't there. But one also looks at the evidence closely to see what's there, what they see there or think they might see, anything, as a start.

I gave two links above to the expert witness reports on Gauci's testimony. I think the Valentine one is particularly helpful. Both professors have closely examined every word the guy said, with supporting documentation, and it's well summarised.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

I'll hopefully catch up with a few thoughts tomorrow, suffice to say if Gauci wanted to exhibit the traits of a man looking for financial compensation for identifying a man who he was plainly unsure of, he couldn't played the role better. When life-changing sums are known to be available for a conviction, it does not neccessarily serve the cause of truth. Indeed, those of lesser principles may be inclined to decorate and assist their stories and their roles. Does possible fame, or notoriety, only to be replaced by greed and fear, have some consequence on an individuals recollection? It certainly must. It is the tacit acceptance by the judges and crown (perhaps not when you consider their 'star' witness) of Gauci as a witness, obviously being coerced and influenced by many factors, resulting in the vague and contradictory statements that should be given any credence in court never mind a pillar of the conviction is astounding.

 

[Rolfe]

I started this game saying that one thing we knew, was that Tony Gauci had seen one of the gang, if only he could have identified him.

I'm now wondering if the details of the clothes themselves might have been "Clever Hans" effect, with Gauci playing along with the suggestions of (presumably at first) the Maltese police, along with a vague memory of an actual sale - possibly someone in a hurry looking for gifts, or the transaction David Wright says he witnessed.

I'm wondering if we actually do have evidence to show that the blast-damaged clothing really came from Gauci's shop, or if he just happened to stock that stuff, and was pliable when the police came asking questions.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I started this game saying that one thing we knew, was that Tony Gauci had seen one of the gang, if only he could have identified him.

I'm now wondering if the details of the clothes themselves might have been "Clever Hans" effect, with Gauci playing along with the suggestions of (presumably at first) the Maltese police, along with a vague memory of an actual sale - possibly someone in a hurry looking for gifts, or the transaction David Wright says he witnessed.

I finally looked up Clever Hans and I gotta say that's a smart horse to even read "unconscious" cues that consistently and precisely. This raises the bar a bit for Tony. I'm sure he was more than capable of similar feats.

I'm wondering if we actually do have evidence to show that the blast-damaged clothing really came from Gauci's shop, or if he just happened to stock that stuff, and was pliable when the police came asking questions.

Rolfe.

I'll hopefully catch up with a few thoughts tomorrow, suffice to say if Gauci wanted to exhibit the traits of a man looking for financial compensation for identifying a man who he was plainly unsure of, he couldn't played the role better. When life-changing sums are known to be available for a conviction, it does not neccessarily serve the cause of truth. Indeed, those of lesser principles may be inclined to decorate and assist their stories and their roles. Does possible fame, or notoriety, only to be replaced by greed and fear, have some consequence on an individuals recollection? It certainly must. It is the tacit acceptance by the judges and crown (perhaps not when you consider their 'star' witness) of Gauci as a witness, obviously being coerced and influenced by many factors, resulting in the vague and contradictory statements that should be given any credence in court never mind a pillar of the conviction is astounding.

See, that's why I don't quote you much. What could I add to that sweeping stroke of gestalt probablyness?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I gave two links above to the expert witness reports on Gauci's testimony. I think the Valentine one is particularly helpful. Both professors have closely examined every word the guy said, with supporting documentation, and it's well summarised.

Rolfe.

And these again are homework PDFs.
Professor Timothy Valentine Professor Steven Clark

I'll take these as prime reference material then. They were compiled by the defense, so that may insert a bias, but anyone else can feel fre to bring in the crown's or FBI's detailed anlyses. Clark lists the materials he reviewed - an impressive list. Just the statements helps to anchor down some basic details to build off of, Re-ordered, chronologically, below.

Statements of Anthony Gauci,
- 1 September, 1989 (Prod. No. 452) (listed twice)
- 13 September, 1989 (Prod. Nos. 455, 456, 457)t
- 14 September, 1989 (Prod. No. 458)
- 19 September, 1989 (Prod. No. 454)
- 26 September, 1989 (Prod. No. 459, 460, 461) (listed twice)
- 2 October, 1989 (Prod. No. 463)
- 4 October, 1989 (Prod. No. 462) (listed twice)
- 19 October, 1989
- 30 January, 1990 (Prod. No. 464)
- 31 January, 1990 (Prod. No. 465)
- 21 February, 1990 (Prod. No. 466)
- 5 March 1990 (Prod. No. 467)
- 31 August, 1990 (Prod. No. 468)
- 10 September 1990 (Prod. No. 469)
- 15 February 1991 (Prod. No. 470)
- 4 November, 1991 (Prod. No. 471)
- 18 March 1999 (Crown precognition, Floriana, Malta)
- 13 April, 1999 (Identification Parade at Camp Zeist)
- 25th August 1999 (Crown precognition, Dumfries, Scotland) (both statements summarized in one document).
- 8 October, 1999 (Defence precognition)

Seventeen statements in about two years, then Anthony was back burner for over seven years. First witness parade was held after the famous transfer of the suspect - in front of the world's eyes - to Zeist in 1999. He pointed to the right guy, I hear.

Looks like the first known interview was Sept 1 1989. I'm sure that's been mentioned a few times but I'm getting it now too. That's swift. Made in Malta tags they had, traceability they had from these only but it hadn't apparently led them to Mary's House yet. All that changed prior to September was the printout from Frankfurt *showing* a possible bomb bag originating from Malta. Aug 17 that was received in the UK. Just two weeks later with this new fire under their butts they did what? Aggressively canvass all Malta asking all shopkeepers? Suddenly realize the tag numbers indicate certain batches sold to a certain place? Do you know, Rolfe, how anyone has explained just which path led to that store?

Anyway they found Anthony less than two weeks after having Malta more explicitly indicated. After all you can't just rush into these things, you need to be led there - o so cautiously - by the evidence itself, which just kept appearing like bread crumbs. Another 16 talks later they finally had enough to say close enough for the indictment, which I suspect was supposed to be the final word on the issue.

- Adam

 

[Rolfe]

There are apparently several statements missing too. Maybe as many as five. They just vanished and no copies exist. I wonder what he said on these days?

I understand it was the Maltese police who pretty much trotted Gauci up for inspection. To me, this suggests earlier interviews which extablished that Gauci was the retailer they were looking for. Along with interviews of other shopkeepers who said, sorry officer I can't help you there.

I suspect this information is somewhere but I'm not sure where to look.

I wonder if McHronzi is coming back? I'd be happy to discuss this with anyone who has taken the trouble to become informed.

Rolfe.