Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Caustic Logic]

Seemed like a good moment for a bump-a-roo. Progress report, McH?

 

[Rolfe]

McHrozni?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

McHrozni?

Rolfe.

Any further thoughts, McH?

Really, honestly, if you can support the proposal that Megrahi really did buy these clothes from Gauci on 7th December, I'm all ears.

(Though to be honest I'm more interested in establishing whether we can be reasonably sure that anybody bought these clothes from Gauci, on any date.)

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

?

Oh well, never mind McH.

Have we decided that these trousers proved the clothes in the suitcase were definitely purchased fro Gauci?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Lacking anyone prepared to support the position that Megrahi bought these clothes, can I try to advance this thread?

I'd first like to establish whether we can be reasonably sure that the items found on the ground at Lockerbie really were bought from Gauci's shop in the first place. It may be we've already shown that, but I'm a bit hazy about how definite this is and on what grounds. (I haven't been into this in the same depth as the timer fragment.) Anyone care to recap?

My alternative thought, as I said before, is that the clothes were simply picked up from the stack that Abu Talb had accumulated, which I think were mainly sourced directly from the manufacturers. I don't think Megrahi bought these clothes, for all the reasons we've been over, but I don't really see Abu Talb or any of that gang going into Mary's House and flashing money around in the obvious way the Mystery Shopper is said to have done either.

What would be interesting is information about how Gauci was originally identified as the probable vendor (I believe by the Maltese police), and how much he volunteered (as opposed to how much he was prompted). Also, I understand there was some investigation into the clothes in Abu Talb's winter collection, but I'm not sure if anything was established one way or another. Does anyone have any links to this information?

I do find the whole Mystery Shopper tale to be very very strange, and I'd like to know how well-supported it really is.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

Rolfe: have you read this book?

The Lockerbie Incident: A Detectives Tale - John Crawford.

JC is apparently one of the police minions who was involved in the case and the investigation.

I've skimmed it so far and it seems to follow the official story pretty much but it gives a good perspective on that point of view of the investigation and also gives some interesting detail about how "Mary's House" was first identified. pg 121 onwards.

Basically they found the baby gro fragment that had "Made in Malta" on the label that lead them to Malta. A while later they discovered the Yorkie trousers with Yorkie on the label and after much searching discovered "Yorkie Clothing" based in Malta, the source of said trousers. Yorkie clothing identified the batch of cloth they had used to make these, turns out it was to make 6 pairs of trousers, and all 6 had been ordered by Mary's House.

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't get as far as the Malta chapters before Google Books decided I'd read enough. Maybe it will have forgotten by now and let me have another look?

I wouldn't trust Crawford too far - he admits he's doing it purely from memory and he's flat wrong about some stuff. He relates that Tommy McColm found the piece of circuit board that identified the Toshiba radio, for example.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

I wouldn't trust Crawford too far - he admits he's doing it purely from memory and he's flat wrong about some stuff. He relates that Tommy McColm found the piece of circuit board that identified the Toshiba radio, for example.

Ah.

I'll add that to the pile of books that are not all that great then.

 

[Rolfe]

There's valuable stuff in there. His pen portrait of Tommy McColm is a revelation. However, I wouldn't trust him on any fact he didn't have personal knowledge of - or maybe even ones he had.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Previously I had noted how Gauci had performed pretty weakly for someone who would eventually get $2 million for his consent to fudge Megrahi into his scopes. "sort of like" "resembles" etc... he gave the wrong date, so at the least this wasn't a total "here's your script, these are YOUR memories now, okay?" kinda situation. I wondered if Gauci had actually held out, watered down his certainty, out of partial conscience - hoping to get that money that was *hinted at* while also not convicting an innocent man for sure.

But the test would be the trial. He's presumably been paid by then (??) and relocated, etc. and so his coming through more clear at Camp Zeist may not be required. Maybe he would be put under pressure. I've been skimming through his testimony and from what I've seen, for one, the guy does sound like a bit of an idiot - often pathetic and groveling, but underneath it staying uptight and trying to stick to certain points - mostly being to fudge all the discrepancies closer together. Some excerpts:
Rainfall

”Q Do you remember what the weather was like when the man came to the shop?
A When he came by the first time, it wasn't raining, but then it started dripping. Not very -- it was not raining heavily. It was simply -- it was simply dripping, but as a matter of fact he did take an umbrella, didn't he? He bought an umbrella.” [Day 31, P 4741]
...
“Q … on the 1st of September of 1989 your memory was that the man purchased the umbrella, he didn't leave it for you to bundle up with the other things he had bought in the shop, but he left with the umbrella and put it up outside the door of the shop because it was raining?
A Exactly.” [p 4815]
...
"A It wasn't raining. It wasn't raining. It was just drizzling.
Q We'll come to --
A I can't remember the dates. I don't want to say -- I don't want to give out dates if I am not that sure, sir.
Q Indeed. What I am endeavouring to do, Mr. Gauci, with your help, is to illustrate --
A I always thank you, sir. I am here to help you, sir." [p 4816]
...
"A I don't want to cause confusion. I don't know dates." [p 4820]

age and height

Q What sort of build did he have?
A I'm not an expert on these things. I think he was below six feet. I'm not an expert on these things. I can't say.

Q You mentioned an estimate of height. What sort of shape was he?
A He wasn't small. He was a normal stature. He had ordered a 16-and-a-half shirt.
Q What age would you say he was?
A I said before, below six -- under 60. I don't have experience -- I don't have experience on height or age.[p 4752-53]

The bolded just popped out to me - sounds like a mnemonic device he got mixed up, sincee at first the man was "six foot or more in height" and about 15 years too old to be Magrahi. It's the right message ("below six feet, under sixty, I don't know, I don't know" repeat as needed)

I had asked Mr. Marquise recently how it was they decided the purchase Tony Gauci described happened on December 7. The weather, time of the football game, the Christmas lights situation, all fit like a glove with Nov 23. All points conflict with 7 Dec. I asked "Why doesn’t November 23 work again, aside from Megrahi not being there?" He stopped following those comments, I guess and never saw the question. I did some more research and found one of his colleagues, DCI (Or is it DI?) Bell tacitly and directly admitted it was Megrahi's presence that caused the decision. He cites "confusion" (feigned, IMO) about the date in a private 2006 interview with the SCCRC. I found this in Megrahi's grounds of appeal doc. The link's around. Page 229

DI Bell SCCRC interview (25-26/7/06)
"...The evidence of the football matches was confusing and in the end we did not manage to bottom it out..."
"...I am asked whether at the time I felt that the evidence of the football matches was strongly indicative of 7th December 1988 as the purchase date. No, I did not. Both dates 23rd Nov & 7th Dec 1988 looked likely.
"...It really has to be acknowledged how confusing this all was. No date was signficant for me at the time. Ultimately it was the applicant's [Megrahi’s] presence on the island on 7th December 1988 that persuaded me that the purchase took place on that date. Paul specified 7th December when I met with him on 14th December 1989 and I recorded this..."

 

[Rolfe]

Previously I had noted how Gauci had performed pretty weakly for someone who would eventually get $2 million for his consent to fudge Megrahi into his scopes. "sort of like" "resembles" etc... he gave the wrong date, so at the least this wasn't a total "here's your script, these are YOUR memories now, okay?" kinda situation. I wondered if Gauci had actually held out, watered down his certainty, out of partial conscience - hoping to get that money that was *hinted at* while also not convicting an innocent man for sure.

But the test would be the trial. He's presumably been paid by then (??) and relocated, etc. and so his coming through more clear at Camp Zeist may not be required. Maybe he would be put under pressure. I've been skimming through his testimony and from what I've seen, for one, the guy does sound like a bit of an idiot - often pathetic and groveling, but underneath it staying uptight and trying to stick to certain points - mostly being to fudge all the discrepancies closer together.

I think it makes sense if you realise that the pressure was really coming from Paul. If it had just been between Tony and the police I doubt if they'd have got anywhere. However, it's clear from the evidence that Paul was always there in the background - showing Tony photographs, going over his story with him, telling him what he was supposed to "remember". I think this is why Tony comes over so hesitant, and yet at the same time holding the line that will net the cash.

Remember, Paul got $1 million for himself, as well as the $2 million Tony got. I thought that was odd, but reasoned it was for the evidence he gave about the football match and so on, that helped establish the date they wanted. However, I read in the official notes that he was actually given the money partly for keeping Tony up to the mark (I was amazed they admitted this!) and partly so as not to destabilise the relationship between the brothers by leaving Tony as the sole wealthy brother.

Can you credit it!

Oh, and as far as I know, the money wasn't paid out until some time after the trial. They haven't been in Australia for very long.

Some excerpts:
Rainfall
age and height

As I read it, Tony originally said the purchaser was over six feet tall and over 50 years old. And that it was raining that evening. However, it became obvious (to Paul if not to Tony) that the police wanted the description to be of someone shorter and younger, and for it not to have been raining too much. Thus the later interviews mention the same basic points, but get very hazy about what he's actually saying.

"Did I say he was over six feet? Oh no, about six feet! No, under six feet! Look, I'm not very good at this!" (This from a man who sold clothes for a living.)

"Did I say it was raining? Well, a few spots maybe. Oh yes, he did buy the umbrella because it was raining, but really, it wasn't enough to wet the ground...."

The bolded just popped out to me - sounds like a mnemonic device he got mixed up, sincee at first the man was "six foot or more in height" and about 15 years too old to be Magrahi. It's the right message ("below six feet, under sixty, I don't know, I don't know" repeat as needed)

And if Tony had been the bright one, no doubt it would have sounded a lot more convincing and he'd have identified Megrahi with just the right mixture of caution and confidence. But since Paul was having to coach sandwich-short-of-a-picnic Tony to do it on his own in interviews and the witness box, that's the way it came out.

I had asked Mr. Marquise recently how it was they decided the purchase Tony Gauci described happened on December 7. The weather, time of the football game, the Christmas lights situation, all fit like a glove with Nov 23. All points conflict with 7 Dec. I asked "Why doesn’t November 23 work again, aside from Megrahi not being there?" He stopped following those comments, I guess and never saw the question. I did some more research and found one of his colleagues, DCI (Or is it DI?) Bell tacitly and directly admitted it was Megrahi's presence that caused the decision. He cites "confusion" (feigned, IMO) about the date in a private 2006 interview with the SCCRC. I found this in Megrahi's grounds of appeal doc. The link's around. Page 229

That's actually quite shocking. The case abounds with that circular logic, but it's still shocking to see it admitted as clearly as that. IANAL, but I would have thought that was a pretty good ground for appeal right there on its own.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Bell above cited Paul Gauci, on December 14 1989, specifying December 7 (88) as the likely day he watched that game on a rainy day and missed the big purchase. Yet two months earlier (19 Oct), by police interviews republished in Paul Foot' book, he said and I quote:

“I was shown a list of European football matches I know as UEFA. I checked all the games and dates. I am of the opinion that the game I watched on TV was on 23 November, 1988: SC Dynamo Dresden v AS Roma. On checking the 7th December 1988, I can say that I watched AS Roma v Dynamo Dresden in the afternoon. All the other games were played in the evening. I can say for certain I watched the Dresden v Roma game. On the basis that there were two games played during the afternoon of 23 November and only one on the afternoon of 7th December, I would say that the 23rd November 1988 was the date in question.” [p 21]

Which brings us bak to this point you made, Rolfe, which I'd like to see the source for:

Remember, Paul got $1 million for himself, as well as the $2 million Tony got. I thought that was odd, but reasoned it was for the evidence he gave about the football match and so on, that helped establish the date they wanted. However, I read in the official notes that he was actually given the money partly for keeping Tony up to the mark (I was amazed they admitted this!)

 

[MRC_Hans]

Maybe there was more stuff that was never recovered. Sure. But then, how do you explain that everything the cops identified as being in the suitcase was confirmed as being sold by Gauci, and everything Gauci says he sold, was found scorched (I think)?
It's awfully convenient. [/twoofer]

Rolfe.

Haven't worked myself into the case, but two points:

1) To the above: Well, once one connection was made between clothes sold by Gauci and that suitcase, might they have looked rather selectively for that? If there were other clothes in there, the connection to the suitcase might not have been so obvious, and it might have escaped attention. I assume there was lots of scorched clothes at the crash site, and surely, not all of it was identified.

2) The Libyan Secret Service needs not be that competent. Secret services around the world have been noted on occasion to do surprisingly incompetent things. Very competent people can probably get better (at least safer) jobs elsewhere, and in Libya, the main qualification might be good standing with the government.....

Just my two pennies..

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

Haven't worked myself into the case, but two points:

1) To the above: Well, once one connection was made between clothes sold by Gauci and that suitcase, might they have looked rather selectively for that? If there were other clothes in there, the connection to the suitcase might not have been so obvious, and it might have escaped attention. I assume there was lots of scorched clothes at the crash site, and surely, not all of it was identified.

I was wondering the same thing myself. However, there don't seem to have been many scorched clothes recovered, because the plane was never on fire. The only burned objects (apart from what went into Sherwood Crescent, which was a holocaust, but that's not what we're talking about here) were those in proximity to the IED. Thus, the investigators concentrated very closely on everything found with burn or scorch marks.

I think it more likely that some of the suitcase contents were never found. The Kielder Forest canopy isn't a complete red herring. It's that which makes me a little suspicious that the subset of items in the case which were recovered, matches so closely with Tony's recollection of what he sold. I don't think he remembers selling anything that wasn't recovered.

However, it's not a perfect match, and this is probably an irrelevance.

2) The Libyan Secret Service needs not be that competent. Secret services around the world have been noted on occasion to do surprisingly incompetent things. Very competent people can probably get better (at least safer) jobs elsewhere, and in Libya, the main qualification might be good standing with the government.....

Just my two pennies..

Hans

Why Libya? Seriously? The connection between Libya and the bombing is tenuous and circumstantial. If you're talking about Megrahi in particular, it's perfectly clear from all accounts that whatever else he is or isn't, he's an intelligent, educated man.

Megrahi was born in Tripoli, and was educated in the United States and Cardiff in Wales. He was the head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines (LAA), and director of the Centre for Strategic Studies in Tripoli, Libya.

However, my main question applies to whoever planted the bomb - Libya or the PFLP-GC, or the South African apartheid regime or any of the other suspects accused by the various CTs. That purchase is very strange indeed. Given the many ways virtually untraceable clothes can be obtained, and how simply this can be done, I'm deeply puzzled.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Haven't worked myself into the case, but two points:

1) To the above: Well, once one connection was made between clothes sold by Gauci and that suitcase, might they have looked rather selectively for that? If there were other clothes in there, the connection to the suitcase might not have been so obvious, and it might have escaped attention. I assume there was lots of scorched clothes at the crash site, and surely, not all of it was identified.

Looking selectively... Hmmm... I'm not sure how they did it, but I think maybe they showed him photos and got him to identify damaged items as things he sold, and then he related how he'd sold these precise items on a certain day he remembered. Don't quote me on that. Actually there should not have been much scorched clothing. The bomb bag's contents should have been largely reduced to ash, but only a few closer bags would probably be ruptured and contents burnt. Most of this would leave the plane early, and scatter the farthest. Searchers were told to look for anything burnt, but I can't imagine they found anything very often.

2) The Libyan Secret Service needs not be that competent. Secret services around the world have been noted on occasion to do surprisingly incompetent things. Very competent people can probably get better (at least safer) jobs elsewhere, and in Libya, the main qualification might be good standing with the government.....

Just my two pennies..

We're playing with whole dollars here, boy! Kidding. It's true that incompetence can happen and shouldn't itself be a clue that someone's been framed. But no one here is doing that. All other evidence also supports that this guy was framed, so the *alleged, improbable but possible* incompetence becomes another circumstantial clues. "No wonder it didn't sound right..." That sort of thing.

That goes for all such alleged incompetence in this case: the early setting on the timer (oops or frameup?), the conspicuous alleged clothes purchase (oops or frameup?), etc... What say you to that? Thanks for the comment, mate.

"Did I say he was over six feet? Oh no, about six feet! No, under six feet! Look, I'm not very good at this!" (This from a man who sold clothes for a living.)

"Did I say it was raining? Well, a few spots maybe. Oh yes, he did buy the umbrella because it was raining, but really, it wasn't enough to wet the ground...."

Originally Posted by Caustic Logic
The bolded just popped out to me - sounds like a mnemonic device he got mixed up, sincee at first the man was "six foot or more in height" and about 15 years too old to be Magrahi. It's the right message ("below six feet, under sixty, I don't know, I don't know" repeat as needed)

And if Tony had been the bright one, no doubt it would have sounded a lot more convincing and he'd have identified Megrahi with just the right mixture of caution and confidence. But since Paul was having to coach sandwich-short-of-a-picnic Tony to do it on his own in interviews and the witness box, that's the way it came out.

I wanted to give a smile that you summed up my own impressions so well. And now I've learned Paul also earned his million by changing his own stories, aside from possibly steering his brothers'. On October 19 1989 Paul clearly states Nov 23 was the day. Two months later on Dec 14 he's telling the same Bell it was Dec 7.

In another thread, way back, Rolfe, we were discussing how early a plot to blame Libya was in place. I was inclined to see it from near the beginning, the first months of '89, and absolutely by the end of the year, while you were looking at a shift somewhere in 1990 IIRC. (wasn't it Lumpert you were waiting on? giggle)

Anyway, I think that's another solid clue they were gunning for Megrahi long enough by Dec 14 that Paul had picked up the hint. I still say it was earlier, at least as a "plan B", perhaps set up by Bollier's and Giaka's early input plus the panic to hide Khreesat and London.

ETA: New post at my blog on Bell and the Gaucis.

 

[Caustic Logic]

And Prof. Black re-posts excerpts. More comments.

Ebol's pyjama's evidence - Rolfe? I think it sounds pretty good, but it's ebol. Do you suspect it's a fatally-flawed booby-trapped clue? :

Tony Gauci told Bollier on 25.01.2008 in Malta, that the 2 pieces of pyjamas, label "John Mallia", were the last two pyjamas he had sold to a Libyan in his shop. On the other day, the 24th of November 1988, Gauci by phon ordered at the company "John Mallia" additionally 8 pieces of the same pyjamas. The 8 pyjamas were delivered on the 25th of November 1988 with the calculation/delivery note, dated 25th of November 1988 to Gauci' s Mary' s House at Sliema Malta. Prod. 477-1.

 

[Rolfe]

I've been neglecting this aspect for a bit, probably because it's quite complex, but I'm just bumping it to see if McHrozni has had a chance to come back on this issue, as he promised.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Just a few remarks and thoughts on this subject, which I will give much more thought to later, before it slips onto page 3…

It's interesting, I had never really given that much thought to Tony's brother Paul other than he was partner/co-owner and his apparent absence when "Megrahi" entered the shop on 7 December. You know, when it wasn't raining, but it was. That is, until it was revealed that he had received substantial compensation from the JD Lockerbie funds, and as has been pointed out here, that he was perhaps far more influencial and instrumental in the coercement of his brother's dealing with the investigators and the recollection of the sale to "Megrahi".

It's claimed that by July '89 UK investigators had started making enquiries about the remnants of Trouser and Babygro found amid 103's debris. These enquiries led to the 'Yorkie Clothing Company' and 'Big Ben' respectively. Now we know that after the explosion around the clothing, what wasn't obliterated was blown out of the suitcase and aircraft, leaving the remnants to reveal this to investigators. Thus, Yorkie Clothing in Malta, and their order sent to Mary's House of 20 pairs of this batch of Trouser.

However, quite how, and when, exactly they managed to track down the manufacturer of the Babygro, which, much like the page of manual discovered by Mrs Horton, seems to be some dispute over the condition the garment was in when discovered and it's condition when presented to the court at Zeist. Even more curiously, it would appear, and it's seems has never been disputed, that not only was Paul Gauci co-owner of Mary's House, but he was infact also Managing Director of Big Ben, the manufacturer of the Blue Babygro.

I hear alarm bells.

 

[Rolfe]

My spidey-sense tingles like mad every time I think about the whole Gauci story.

Yes, I know, terrorists aren't smart and why shouldn't one of them have decided to puchase clothes for the bomb bag in such a remarkably conspicuous manner, yadda, yadda.... But honestly, this one is just bizarre. When you think of the numerous ways of getting hold of clothes that would be pretty much untraceable, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Along with using a radio of a model, the vast bulk of which had been supplied to Libya, and packing the manual with it just in case the investigators missed it, and using a bespoke timer, all of which had been supplied to Libya, and setting this timer so ridiculously early that all this lovely evidence was strewn across Dumfriesshire instead of going straight to Davy Jones's locker.

I don't really go for the suggestion that the whole bomb bag was a fabrication. And I don't see how that would explain the Gauci part anyway, unless you're into some sort of MIHOP theory with the purchaser deliberately trying to be remembered. However, we rather think the timer fragment was fabricated. And we rather think the manual of the radio was planted to point to the Libyan model. I don't really know how the evidence of the clothes was manipulated (beyond trying to get Gauci to identify Megrahi, which was a bit blatant), but I'm hugely suspicious of the entire tale.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Even more curiously, it would appear, and it's seems has never been disputed, that not only was Paul Gauci co-owner of Mary's House, but he was infact also Managing Director of Big Ben, the manufacturer of the Blue Babygro.

I hear alarm bells.

Indeed. Details?