Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure how much reliance we can put on Gauci's identification of the purchaser as "Libyan". It's been said that there are many Libyans in Malta, and he would have been familiar with the nationality and the accent.

However, I'm not clear that he wouldn't simply have assumed all Middle-east Arabs he couldn't immediately peg as something else were generic "Libyan". Somewhat similar to the situation here, when we have a lot of Polish immigrants around, anyone from Eastern Europe is likely to be assumed to be Polish unless we have some reason to think otherwise.

That second quote doesn't inspire great confidence in me that Tony really could place a Libyan reliably by his accent.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I would agree that there probably was a purchase of some clothes, by a man of Arab origin, some time around the period in question. However, I'm not yet convinced that this purchase had anything to do with the bombing. I'm still suspicious that Tony originally remembered a possibly relevant purchase when first questioned about the matter, and was then encouraged by leading questions, subliminal clues and latterly promises of large sums of money to make this poorly-recalled purchase a fit for the blast-damaged clothing.

If that's the case, then the identity of the purchaser is irrelevant. Only if we can be fairly sure that the clothes that hazily-remembered customer purchased really did end up on the ground in Dumfriesshire, does the identity of the purchaser start to matter.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I too doubt mr. Gauci could tell a "Libiyon" from, say, a Palestinian any better than most shopkeepers around here could discern a Puerto Rican from a Honduran when all they're used to dealing with (or perceiving) is "Mexicans."

What strikes me is how oblivious he acts in boldly saying Libyan everything. It's almost, not to jump too far, but almost as if he was really just saying "I understand you guys want a Libyan." I think by September, especially considering Giaka and his tales festering in the shadows, the "script" had turned fully to Libya, if it wasn't fully settled there to outward appearances.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If that's the case, then the identity of the purchaser is irrelevant. Only if we can be fairly sure that the clothes that hazily-remembered customer purchased really did end up on the ground in Dumfriesshire, does the identity of the purchaser start to matter.

No, no, we just can't do that. I do sense reading this that there's a core of truth to a genuine encounter, and possibly even a connection to the Lockerbie evidence. But as always, eyewitness testimony is already the weakest evidence. It gets no better when further softened after years of simmering and seasoning and repeated questioning and uncertain methods, and possible leading... In his first statement, is that Tony typing in the evidence production numbers to describe the items sold? Is that normal?

This is almost CIT-grade material in my opinion. (the "flyover witness" people). He describes a different guy on a different day, thus exculpating the otherwise suspect. To accept the evidence, the Crown must admit he can be wrong by four inches, 20 years, a few skin shades, and yet use it as definitive evidence as long as a shopping list can somehow be made to appear a match? We also have to presume faulty weather records and a flaky brother, neither too odd really, but these in coincidental tandem with a weak "Libyan" ID that counts for zero. Libyan al Megrahi is proven to have been at Mary's House on Dec 7.

And we still have no evidence (do we?) other than this mess, that said clothes were ever even in Mary's House. Do we really know Gauci ever had anything to do with the exact items recovered in Scotland and England? If they found him by canvassing shopkeepers, then the point is all but proven. All we know for sure Gauci was for the investigation is a good enough storyteller.

 

[Rolfe]

No, no, we just can't do that. I do sense reading this that there's a core of truth to a genuine encounter, and possibly even a connection to the Lockerbie evidence. [....]

You misunderstand. The key word there is possibly.

What I mean is, we should examine the evidence and decide how strong the connection between Gauci's "Libyan" and the actual clothes found at Lockerbie really is.

If there is a genuine probabilty that these clothes were purchased at Mary's House, then the question of who bought them (and why he did it that way) is obviously crucial. However, if the whole mystery shopper thing is a red herring, then the more interesting question becomes, where did the clothes actually come from then?

In the initial stages, it seems as if the police would have been quite happy with an identification of Abu Talb. Even though he wasn't Libyan. But on that one, I can't help wondering what Abu Talb would be doing buying clothes from Tony Gauci, when he had a stack of stuff at home bought from the factories.

I think the first question is, did those clothes really come from that shop? And I've too much work on here to look, right now.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Thanks CL for the digging around and clearing up any confusion surrounding the times that the football matches were broadcast on the 23 nov and 7 dec. And as has been pointed out, it supports Tony's original claim that the clothes were purchased when Paul was not there, precisely because of a football game, and the info you've pulled up indicates the 23rd as the most likely as it coincides with the times Tony gave as when the purchaser of the clothing entered the shop.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You misunderstand. The key word there is possibly.

No, I understood, I just went off on a tangent. Basically I guess all I can see linking these clothes to Mary's House at all is words from Gauci.

What I mean is, we should examine the evidence and decide how strong the connection between Gauci's "Libyan" and the actual clothes found at Lockerbie really is.

If there is a genuine probabilty that these clothes were purchased at Mary's House, then the question of who bought them (and why he did it that way) is obviously crucial. However, if the whole mystery shopper thing is a red herring, then the more interesting question becomes, where did the clothes actually come from then?

Right on. I can't see how to accept these statements as good evidence, and they're all we have. A definitive case would, I think, involve serial numbers from clothes tags (?) and factory records, compared with sles records showing "Mary's Hose, Silema Malta." Stuff like that. Maybe not? Just asking around until you find a guy that can smell the cheese even before you unwrap it is all it takes to get bad evidence.

In the initial stages, it seems as if the police would have been quite happy with an identification of Abu Talb. Even though he wasn't Libyan. But on that one, I can't help wondering what Abu Talb would be doing buying clothes from Tony Gauci, when he had a stack of stuff at home bought from the factories.

I wonder why such suspicions ever surfaced to be leaked and such? Wrong age. Not Libyan (tho not Tunisian), there too early (AFATK?), and didn't he link back to the PFLPGC or is said to? Maybe they were gonna ignore his other suppliers, but I think they were looking for Libyans by the beginning of September. Gauci's first words awkwardly hint that he'd become aware of that (contaminated). Perhaps the whole "maybe it was Talb" episode was arranged to obscure that too-abrupt shift, give the old line one last hurrah before they found one more thing and just HAD to say Libya.

I think the timer fragment was finally identified a few months later.

I think the first question is, did those clothes really come from that shop? And I've too much work on here to look, right now.

Rolfe.

Who said they probably did? Buncrana, that was you, right? Ya, here:

Well, at the moment, I am slightly more at ease believing the clothes are actually from Malta, and probably Gauci's shop, simply because I accept that the clothes presented as evidence were the items around the bomb or at least in the suitcase and the explosion. I think they may well have been purchased from Gauci's shop, although not neccessarily by one person on just the one date.

I suppose I'm also a little more at ease accepting this source for the clothing due to the fact I am reasonably satisfied the suitcase was not introduced at Luqa. For some reason this adds plausibility.

So with a little reflection, I think we could all agree there's no reason aside from stuff Tony said to say this is where they came from. I'm not 100% the clothes were around the bomb, but inclined to accept it by dafault. It's only Tony's tortured mutant recollection-like things that ties some person to the majority of the stash. If they found him by canvassing shops, rather than following paperwork, it's almost a lost cause from the start, in my mind.

On the core truth of a purchase apparently on 23 November, I'm not as sure today it's probable. It does have a bit of fiction feel to it, if inspired by a real day (likely 11/23). It was a dark and stormy night, I was all alone, my nipples hard with fear. A tall dark Libiyon stranger entered, his face lit from below by the blinking Christmas lights, speaking guttural Libyan at me. ... etc ... it gets even worse later with the agents following him, and him following them, and them watching and not buying anything and the pressure it was putting on him...

Thanks CL for the digging around and clearing up any confusion surrounding the times that the football matches were broadcast on the 23 nov and 7 dec. And as has been pointed out, it supports Tony's original claim that the clothes were purchased when Paul was not there, precisely because of a football game, and the info you've pulled up indicates the 23rd as the most likely as it coincides with the times Tony gave as when the purchaser of the clothing entered the shop.

Yeah, I think we can all agree now the 23rd is - at the least - a far better fit. It's good to be agreed on something and based on the best evidence. Dec 7 requires faulty weather records plus a flaky brother gone hours for post-game activities, not for the game itself. The 23rd had recorded rainfall AND a game from 5-7, when Paul was described as gone around 6pm. (all local times and approximate )

Also I apologize to the CIT for comparing them back to this. They are just jokers without the powers to get their fake cases triggering incarcerations and sanctions and war if need be, and among their dishonest methods, offering $2 million (even if never explicitly enumerated) is not one we need to worry about.

Random thought: Did Paul Gauci get his million to keep him cooperative, since he was always miffed he hadn't been at the shop when the fuzz came canvassing? Upset he missed his chance to say HE was alone in the store since his brother had gone home early to watch a football game?

 

[Rolfe]

It's not that simple, and we have to remember the tweed jacket and the umbrella (that latter is a strange story though). The CIA knew Megrahi was in Malta on 7th December even before the plane blew up, which is interesting.

I have a feeling I don't have time to look at this before Christmas.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's not that simple, and we have to remember the tweed jacket and the umbrella (that latter is a strange story though). The CIA knew Megrahi was in Malta on 7th December even before the plane blew up, which is interesting.

I have a feeling I don't have time to look at this before Christmas.

Rolfe.

Sorry, what exactly isn't so simple? It was a long post. That last line isn't ringing any bells as something I know. You should explain that interesting tidbit, perhaps early next year.

To clarify my overly-strong arguments here against any value to Tony's story are just to help break the trance of accepting this stuff without deep questioning. There may well be a kernel of even relevant truth to this alleged encounter. I just wanted to say "not necessarily." Sorry if I've grossly over-said it.

FWIW, Gauci's first statement gives the items handed over to police with prefix "prod no." or production number. I'm pretty sure he typed this up himself, so where did he get that from? There are no numbers, it's almost like something he saw attached to items on a list he was shown and decided it was the right thing to use when reciting them back. Example, the jacket actually:

... I have supplied the police with a similar jacket.

Prod No. 1 x Gents Jacket "Anglia" make.

I now recall that I left the "coat hangers" on the jacket when I sold it to the man. I have also given the police a

Prod No. 1 x "plastic hanger" with brand name Anglia

It might mean nothing, just made me go hmmmm.

Also, I was curious since Mr. Wright's testimony was being cited earlier, and I've cast some doubt on it since (post #62), what did you guys think now? Is Wright's story worth serious consideration among all this?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay, I was being a little slow. Crawford's "Detective's Tale" gives some details of the kind of tracing I would hope to see aside from Tony's yakkity-yak. I'm not sure this is on the level, but he says they were surprised to find a Yorkie clothing company on Malta, and that the fabric they found was not from another source, like the Yorkie candy bar company. (??) On page 127 he writes of their visit to Yorkie:

The results were very positive. From a series of stick-on numbers that were recovered in similar patches of cloth the manufacturer was able to sort out the actual order for the cloth. It had been a very exclusive order indeed; the cloth was used to make up six pairs of gent's trousers and all of them had gone to the same outlet, Mary's House' in Valetta.
...
Harry had the paperwork for the trousers that traced them from manufacturer right to Mary's House.

 

[Rolfe]

If that's right, then it proves the clothes did come from Mary's House. Remarkably fortuitous, if so, that one of the items the terrorist purchased in his rather conspicuous shopping spree was an almost unique item available from no other outlets.

I'm not sure this is correct though, if Crawford is the only source. He's writing it all from memory, and he's sometimes wrong. It doesn't entirely square with other accounts, as far as I can see.

Why on earth would anyone bent on this sort of mayhem go shopping at Mary's House? It's baffling.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

If that's right, then it proves the clothes did come from Mary's House. Remarkably fortuitous, if so, that one of the items the terrorist purchased in his rather conspicuous shopping spree was an almost unique item available from no other outlets.

I'm not sure this is correct though, if Crawford is the only source. He's writing it all from memory, and he's sometimes wrong. It doesn't entirely square with other accounts, as far as I can see.

Why on earth would anyone bent on this sort of mayhem go shopping at Mary's House? It's baffling.

Rolfe.

I'm willing to say there is more than Gauci's word going on here is all. I kind of thought there was, but hadn't seen it yet (that I remembered anyway). There are some questions about the method used - like where those "similar patches of cloth" were recovered from and are they in fact the same as the cloth found in Scotland?

Now even if these items found were all bought by one person, at Mary's house, on 23 November, and packed by terrorists into that suitcase, as most of us have presumed most of the time, obviously there are still problems like, for one, that person was NOT al Megrahi. And whoever they were, why did they chose such a risky method for getting the clothes? A pair of pants from an order of SIX sent only to that store where Arab-types buying odd assortments are easily recalled.

Also, who makes a run of SIX pairs of pants in their factory? Did "they" just fudge their order of six to Mary's House as the whole batch, to help narrow the field and make the choice all too obvious? It wouldn't be the first time, even just in this case. (the Libya-exclusive Mebo timer, etc.)

 

[GlennB]

Also, who makes a run of SIX pairs of pants in their factory? Did "they" just fudge their order of six to Mary's House as the whole batch, to help narrow the field and make the choice all too obvious? It wouldn't be the first time, even just in this case. (the Libya-exclusive Mebo timer, etc.)

Nobody. It doesn't justify setting up the patterns. This has bothered me from the start.
CL - is the question raised in the court transcripts?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Nobody. It doesn't justify setting up the patterns. This has bothered me from the start.
CL - is the question raised in the court transcripts?

Oh, jeez... maybe. Why're you asking me?

No, kidding. I'll check if the day is narrowdownable - it was probably not a day Gauci was sitting. If I find anything, I'll post it.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Harry Bell, Malta, manufacture, Yorkie, clothes, clothing, trousers, etc. gave me no help using the LTBU daily reports. So I start opening doc a dozen at a time and word-searching, just for Yorkie. So far

Days 14, 16, 17, 20, maybe others. I'll just be thankful I found it in folder 2. I'm not copy-pasting them all, but the first instance, Day 14 may do it. Lessee:
THE MACER: Number 668, William Armstrong.
...
Q When you went to Malta, were you interested in particular items of clothing?
A Yes, I was, sir.
Q Did these include damaged pairs of trousers?
A Yes, they did, sir. That's correct.
Q On the 1st of September 1989, did you go to the premises of Yorkie Clothing in Malta?
A I did, sir.
Q And did you there meet a gentleman called Alexander Calleja?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you understand him to be the company manager?
A He was the company manager, sir. That's correct.
Q Did you have with you photographs of damaged clothing?
A Yes, I did.
...
Q And did you show these photographs to Mr. Calleja?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you then obtain a number of items from Mr. Calleja?
A Yes, I did, sir. That's correct.
...
Would you look, please, at Label 446. Is that a sample of cloth?
A Yes, it is, sir.
Q And was that given by Mr. Calleja to you?
A That was handed over to me by Mr. Calleja.
Q Would you now look, please, at Production 424.
Is that available as a principal?
Is the document that you have in front of you, is that a delivery note?
A Yes, it is, sir. That's correct.
Q And do you see on the screen a label?
A Yes, I do, sir.
Q Is that the label that's attached to it?
A Yes, it is, sir.
Q And is that, then, the delivery note that you took possession of from Mr. Calleja on Saturday, the 2nd of September 1989?
A Yes, it is, sir.
Q And I think we can see your signature on the label; is that right?
A Yes, my signature is on the label, sir. That's correct.
Q Would you now look at Production 491, please.
Is Production 409 [sic] part of a cutting control book?
A Yes, it is, sir.
Q And on the screen we see the label?
A Yes, I do, sir.
Q Do we see that it's described as "Certified true copy of cutting control book, Yorkie Clothing," and it's dated -- what date?
A It's dated the 4th September, 1989.
Q And then, again, do we see the label has been signed by you?
A That's correct, sir. It has been signed by me.
Q Now, did you, in the presence of Mr. Calleja, attach some material to that --
A Yes, I did, sir.
Q Can you explain what you did?
A This page is a copy from the cutting control book. In the original book, down the right-hand side of the page there had been stapled pieces of material which were against a particular order. Mr. Calleja removed these pieces of material from his original book, and he gave them to me, and I stapled them against the relevant entry on the copy that I obtained from him. And you can see them on the copy here.
Q Could we have the next image on the screen, please.
We can see there the document that you've been talking about, and on the right-hand side the various pieces of cloth which you've explained you yourself attached --
A Yes, that's correct, sir.
Q You can close that now, please.
And if you can look at Production 492. And is 492 a certified true copy of a control delivery book?
A Yes, it is, sir.
...
That's about it for that chunk. Didn't answer much but gives some material to ponder on. I'll have to look some more later. Interesting questions.

 

[GlennB]

Oh, jeez... maybe. Why're you asking me?

I'm sorry. You're the only person I know of with the transcripts. How do I get hold of them myself? Downloadable?

 

[realdon]

The results were very positive. From a series of stick-on numbers that were recovered in similar patches of cloth the manufacturer was able to sort out the actual order for the cloth. It had been a very exclusive order indeed; the cloth was used to make up six pairs of gent's trousers and all of them had gone to the same outlet, Mary's House' in Valetta.
...
Harry had the paperwork for the trousers that traced them from manufacturer right to Mary's House

This quote from DC Crawford relating to the yorkie trousers seems to be at odds with Tonys testimony on Day 31 starting at page 4732 line 23

Q I wonder if you would look, please, at a
document, Production 424, which will be shown on the
screen. We see that that's a delivery note from Yorkie
Clothing.
A That's right.
Q And has that been signed by you?
A That's right. Yes.
Q We can see that it's dated 18 November
1988, and it's to Messrs. Gauci
A That's right.
Q It's a delivery note, and it identifies
20 pairs of trousers. I think we can see it says 20
pairs of "TRS" for "trousers," "ORD" for "order," 1705.
Is that right?
A Yes.
Q And the particular these particular
20 trousers are described as checked?
A Yes.
Q And then it refers to 98 pairs of
trousers, order 1705; is that correct?
A Yes. Yes. It is.
Q Giving a total of 118?
A Yes, that's right.



The lead to the Yorkie clothing company first came to the Scottish detectives according to DC Crawford (page 126 A detectives tale)
After a wild goose chase to Cadburys- Rowntree the manufactures of the Yorkie brand chocolate bar in the UK they contacted Jim Friel an FBI agent in Rome whom they asked to find out if there was a Yorkie clothing company in Malta. It took him a hour to find this out and report it back to them
Kind of odd that they didnt bother to make the effort themselves


D

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'm sorry. You're the only person I know of with the transcripts. How do I get hold of them myself? Downloadable?

No worries, of course. It was my way of saying "Oh boy..." I gave you the link in the PM, let me know if that doesn't work.

I am considering another site, more public. I hope this can happen soon-ish. Similar to the wiki idea but non-wiki, viewable by all but only members (those given the passwords and sworn to not share it) can edit. Anyone interested in membership, drop me a line.

Realdon, welcome back and I'm glad you seem to have the docs too. I just can't dig anymore tonight, but your addition is interesting. It would seem the smaller subset of order 1705, the 20 pair, must be what Crawford recalled as six?

Crawford's story is also strange with the Malta lead preceded by a detour to Candyland. Nestle just started re-distributing the Yorkie bar around here, so I know what they're talking about, maybe. Is it the one labeled "not for girls," or is that just our version? It's chunky and brags about having lots of calories. I don't think I'd ever suspect them of making pants.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Trousers news: I think the "run of six" oddity was just Campbell's recollections being off. And besides, the machines could be set to cut a set pattern into hundeds of pieces of cloth, with say 40 of this fabric, 8 of this, 80 of that stuff, based on orders they got. So long as the cut doesn't change, right?

The trousers as evidence:
PI/221 – Primary suitcase clothing
Feraday, 1989: "One pair of dark brown chequer-patterned trousers, severely damaged, with large sections missing. The trousers were wet when received, dried out and returned to a polythene bag.

The damaged remains consist of the major part of the front portion of both legs. The upper and lower extremities are missing, together with the seat area. The regular repeat pattern of damage indicates the trousers were folded when subjected to blast.
"Penetrations and carbonaceous deposits."

Two examinations were made, 16 May and 4 July 1989. He explained the second look was to better identify the recovered materials. These were listed as:

"A, a fragment of lining from the primary suitcase.
"B, five fragments of soft black plastics from the Toshiba RT-SF16.
"C, four paper fragments from the Toshiba
RT-SF16 owner's instruction manual.
"D, two fragments of red-faced cardboard.
"E, four fragments from divider of the primary suitcase.
"F, five clumps of blue/white fibres from Babygro garment.
"G, a fragment of red plastics.
"H, three fragments of yellow plastics.
"I, a fragment of silver plastics from umbrella."

Gauci News, a faux joke with hidden "punchline"
Transcripts, Day 31 (11 July 2000). On first question, Mr. Gauci identifies Mr. Campbell as a Lybian!

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. CAMPBELL:
Q Mr. Gauci, do I understand that you wish to give your evidence in Maltese?
A I can't understand you. You are speaking Arabic to me.

No French in there, so he ain't Tunisian...

LORD SUTHERLAND: Channel 1, please. Now, could the interpreter try again, please.

A (Gauci) Yes.

 

[Rolfe]

It's McHrozni, not McHronzi.

I fully intend to

McHrozni
(and not McHronzi)

Calling McHrozni!

I already apologised for getting your name wrong, it was pure accident.

Have you looked at the evidence? Do you have any contribution yet?

Rolfe.