Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Buncrana]

Sorry folks, I did mean to leave a link where I picked that info up from....

..HERE

Mr Paul Gauci, 46, managing director of Maltese distribution company Big Ben, told how, at the time of the Pan Am bombing, his company distributed clothing across the island to a number of shops, including one named in court as Mary's House. He identified a label from the fragment of a baby suit, displayed in court, and Abanderado T-shirts as similar to ones he had supplied to the Slima store.

This appears to relate to Zeist court proceedings on June 1st 2000. I'll need to have a trawl over the transcripts over the weekend, and see what significance all this may have in the discovery and later court production of the Blue Babygro - with the whole sheep motif on the chest, no, a lambs head on the pocket.

That report also deals with a certain Professor Christopher Peel and his cross-examination by the defence about his methods in determining the precise position and size of the bomb which downed Flight 103. Back in the London Theory thread I feel is more appropriate.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I could swear that would be a typo or mix-up, but Day 13, June 1 has:

MR. CAMPBELL: My Lords, the next witness is number 598, Paul Gauci. I'm advised, My Lords, that Mr. Gauci will require the services of an interpreter, and accordingly, in order to hear the interpreter, earphones would require to be worn.

EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. CAMPBELL:
Q Mr. Gauci, what is your full name?
A Paul Gauci.

Is it a different Paul? Because this one was supposed to have NOT testified, at least regarding his football watching or his brother's meeting with the "bomber"

Q Was one of the shops to which you distributed a shop called Mary's House in Tower Road in Sliema?
A Yes, it was.

Q What was the name of the proprietor of that shop?
A I don't understand what you are saying.

Q What was the name of the owner of the shop?
A The name was Edward Gauci.

Well, he didn't call him "Dad," nor specifically not "no relation." Hmmm... neither does the defense. I'm going for acoincidentally different Paul Gauci. If that's something else after all, it's a pretty amazing move.

 

[Buncrana]

I could swear that would be a typo or mix-up, but Day 13, June 1 has:

Is it a different Paul? Because this one was supposed to have NOT testified, at least regarding his football watching or his brother's meeting with the "bomber"

Well, he didn't call him "Dad," nor specifically not "no relation." Hmmm... neither does the defense. I'm going for acoincidentally different Paul Gauci. If that's something else after all, it's a pretty amazing move.

In this instance, of all the 'coincidences' that this case throws up, bucking the trend this particular one does appear a genuine coincidence. In my ignorance, I hadn't really realised that Gauci seems to be a fairly common surname in Malta.

You would assume that if there had been any relation, even distant, between witness Paul Gauci, MD of Big Ben clothing, and the brothers who operated Mary's House, it would have been remarked at Zeist, by the defence team at least....wouldn't you?

 

[Buncrana]

While having a browse over the transcripts and digging around the web trying to make the distinction or connection between the Gauci's, I did note that Herr Bollier makes the claim that it is one and the same Paul, md at Big Ben, and co-owner of Mary's House on a number of occassions.

However, given his multifaceted background, and his very annoying carnival style coloured website, you have to been cynical at his possible motives in some of his claims, although there seems to be wealth of information he has his hands on and some excellents sources of court productions on his site.

You have to say that surely if Bollier's claim in this respect had had any substance whatsoever, someone else would have picked up on this matter about Paul.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

*snip*
Rolfe.

It does sound strange. Unfortunately, in cases like this, we are really in a situation where we MUST point out a clown. Either the supposed terrorist did something very stupid, OR whoever orchestrated the thing to frame the supposed terrorist did.

The only other option is that we only have part of the truth, and those things that seem just too coincidental are really the result of some kind of, deliberate or not, cherry-picking of fragments of the whole story.

Hans

 

[Buncrana]

It does sound strange. Unfortunately, in cases like this, we are really in a situation where we MUST point out a clown. Either the supposed terrorist did something very stupid, OR whoever orchestrated the thing to frame the supposed terrorist did.

The only other option is that we only have part of the truth, and those things that seem just too coincidental are really the result of some kind of, deliberate or not, cherry-picking of fragments of the whole story.

Hans

Despite all the reservations we may have over the actual purchase of all the clothing apparently packed around the bomb, I think what we're really striving for initially is the fact that, as oppose to the court's decision at Zeist, it is highly unlikely given the evidence supplied, together with the findings made by the SCCRC, that it could be determined 'beyond reasonable doubt' that it was Megrahi who was the buyer, and not possibly someone else altogether.

That is to say, we don't dispute the actual clothing purchase from Mary's shop, and it's part in the bomb bag, but it occurred on another date and thereby was made by another purchaser. Given the information and evidence that is available, it is simply inexplicable how the judges at Zeist arrived at their verdict on the buyer of the clothes being Megrahi, and the SCCRC were of the same thought in returning the case to the appeal court.

Also, given the contradictions and inconsistencies of the other crucial items of evidence that was presented in order to cement Megrahi's guilt, the fragment of timer, the Toshiba manual, the Erac printout, then it is only natural that we turn our attention to the contentions, and there are some, over the the actual purchase and whether it ever took place at all, and even the provenance of the clothing itself.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'm agnostic on whether there was any one purchase and purchaser at all, or that the clothes all came from Mary's House. But I accept these as things not worth arguing.

But from the Gaucis' own best evidence, the alleged purchase does refer to real day, quite clearly and in numerous ways, and it's a day our Libyan villain was NOT on Malta. Can anyone contest the points made here?

(same ones made here as per date, but condensed - football matches, rainfall, christmas lights)

I don't think you can and I don't think anyone I'd take seriously can acknowledge all that and still believe Gauci's evidence supports Megrahi as the purchaser. He may still have been "the bomber" in some sense, but he didn't buy those clothes on that day, as so importantly charged.

ETA: Oh, and I'm not surprised the Swiss Cheese latched onto Paul the babygro-supplier notion. It is worth a double-take, but just takes it at first take and runs. So Bollier. He's even claimed he was handed the babygro himself, a gift for someone else that he added to a suitcase of Maltese clothes the Libyans had him carting around, didja know? That's Bollier!

ETA: ATTN MRC_Hans, in particular I'm curious what you think of date of purchase? Can you support the purchase being made by Megrahi on December 7, and if so, how?

 

[Rolfe]

In this instance, of all the 'coincidences' that this case throws up, bucking the trend this particular one does appear a genuine coincidence. In my ignorance, I hadn't really realised that Gauci seems to be a fairly common surname in Malta.

You would assume that if there had been any relation, even distant, between witness Paul Gauci, MD of Big Ben clothing, and the brothers who operated Mary's House, it would have been remarked at Zeist, by the defence team at least....wouldn't you?

Remember my initial confusion about the two different policemen involved with the case who had the surname Gilchrist. I initially assumed they were the same person, despite knowing that Gilchrist is a fairly common name in central/southern Scotland.

So I'm going to assume genuine coincidence unless someone who isn't Bollier shows otherwise.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It does sound strange. Unfortunately, in cases like this, we are really in a situation where we MUST point out a clown. Either the supposed terrorist did something very stupid, OR whoever orchestrated the thing to frame the supposed terrorist did.

The only other option is that we only have part of the truth, and those things that seem just too coincidental are really the result of some kind of, deliberate or not, cherry-picking of fragments of the whole story.

I'm not yet convinced these are the only two options. Probably because I've not gone far enough into the other possibilities to be sure they're non-runners.

I don't think it's very reasonable to postulate that someone went into Gauci's shop on 23rd November (or 7th December) with the deliberate intention of being remembered, so that the purchase could later be pinned on a selected suspect. While I think it was foolhardy in the extreme to imagine Gaucu definitely wouldn't remember the purchase, I also think it would have been a bit of a long shot to assume that he would. Not a great prospect for a successful frame-up, really.

So, if the clothes were really purchased from the Gauci shop, I think it's more probable the purchaser was either one of the terrorists, or (conceivably) an innocent passenger on the plane whose luggage was close enough to the explosion to be mistakenly identified as being in the bomb suitcase itself.

While I appreciate there is some evidence said to pin down specific items in the list of things recovered to Gauci's shop, I haven't yet taken the time to check how reliable this actually is. My alternative suggestion is that the clothes originated from the Maltese factories who supplied Gauci, but were not necessarily purchased from him. However, when the investigators came to call, Gauci inadvertently connected the questions he was being asked to a purchase he happened to remember, and by a "Clever Hans" type of process, named the specific items the police were hoping to trace. We do know that interviews with Gauci were not conducted according to best practice and that a lot of leading questioning went on - both as regards what was purchased and what the purchaser looked like.

It may be possible to eliminate this hypothesis, but I haven't yet seen enough evidence to do that.

And yes, once we've established that there really was a purchaser around that time who bought these clothes from Gauci, as CL said, the evidence indicates that this person was not Megrahi.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

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.

It seems to me you aren't actually trying to figure out anything other than poke holes in what became the official story of the Lockerbie bombing. By doing so, you're making the same leap of faith as all conspiracy theorists must necessarily do: to believe that a few holes in a theory completely discredit the theory as a whole.

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. Near as I can tell, no one else had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. If that is true, he carried out the attack - no one else who could would want to.

The minimum you have to do in such a case is to produce a different suspect, who could, in theory, carry out the attacks. If you have done so, point me to your evidence and theory.

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.

Again, the purchase wasn't strange at all. If he packed the bomb among his own clothes, someone could recognize it as his clothes. True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

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?

Your story is thus such:
We have a government agent of a country strongly supporting a nationalist cause, including terrorism. A terrorist attack occurs, originating in a country the said agent was based, using explosives that were avaiable to his country. The bomb used is of the same variety as has been used by the terrorists supported by the agents' country. The detonator alledgedly* used by the terrorist matches detonators used in terrorist attacks supported by the agents' country. The government agent was at the airport when the bag was first accepted by airport security. He left the country for his country of origin at the same time. But, because the testimony of someone who probably sold clothes that went next to the bomb is unreliable, it was all a conspiracy to frame the agent and his country.


*granted, the story here is suspect, so this very damning piece of evidence can be discarded for all I care

No, Rolfe, there is no significant speculation here, unless you can produce a different viable suspect, that would have the access to the explosive used, new clothes from Malta, technology to conceal the bomb in a Toshiba radio and a motive to blow up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland and not come forward with any demands or something similar. Unless you can produce that, all you have is speculation.

Again, if you have done so before, please point me to your alternative theory.

McHrozni

 

[Buncrana]

Sorry McHrozni, not meaning to intervene on your joust with Rolfe, but can you please clarify exactly how "The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity", and proves beyond reasonable doubt that this conviction is assured and correct?

Because, as this thread and the many others suggest, the evidence actually indicates the contrary. And yes, there was someone else, whom Gauci had also mentioned in his litany of statements, who had access to maltese clothes, the technology and expert associated who had been concealing the bombs precisely inside a Toshiba Radio, and plenty of ideological and financial motive. Abu Talb. But he's with Khreesat, the Jordanian/PLFP/CIA/...etc..etc asset/agent, so that's a no-go area.

 

[McHrozni]

I'm not yet convinced these are the only two options. Probably because I've not gone far enough into the other possibilities to be sure they're non-runners.

I don't think it's very reasonable to postulate that someone went into Gauci's shop on 23rd November (or 7th December) with the deliberate intention of being remembered, so that the purchase could later be pinned on a selected suspect. While I think it was foolhardy in the extreme to imagine Gaucu definitely wouldn't remember the purchase, I also think it would have been a bit of a long shot to assume that he would. Not a great prospect for a successful frame-up, really.

An absolutely horrible way to set up a frame-up. If Gauci would remember the man poorly, his testimony would be very weak as evidence. If he would remember him well, chances are he would say "yes, someone did buy this, but it wasn't your suspect". It's just not a risk anyone sane would take.

So, if the clothes were really purchased from the Gauci shop, I think it's more probable the purchaser was either one of the terrorists, or (conceivably) an innocent passenger on the plane whose luggage was close enough to the explosion to be mistakenly identified as being in the bomb suitcase itself.

That's somewhat more reasonable.

What you're most likely missing is this: Gaucis' testimony is not the only thing implicating Mergahi. If he really saw Mergahi purchase those clothes, and can positively identify him, then it's very likely Mergahi is indeed the main cultprit. If he didn't, however, we can't say he isn't. Before you jump at me for this apperant contradiction, however, know that setting him up in that way is something entirely different from Mergadi actually buying the said clothes. If you're setting a man up, a positive identification is just about impossible to achieve. At best, you'll get a small but unnecessary boost to your case. At worst, you'll be found out.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Sorry McHrozni, not meaning to intervene on your joust with Rolfe, but can you please clarify exactly how "The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity", and proves beyond reasonable doubt that this conviction is assured and correct?

That's a standard in an investigation, isn't it? You need to have a suspect with motive, means and opportunity. If you have that and circumstantial evidence supports he was the cultprit and you have no one else who could do the deed (means and opportunity) and nothing to exclude him, it's highly unlikely someone else was the cultprit.

Because, as this thread and the many others suggest, the evidence actually indicates the contrary. And yes, there was someone else, whom Gauci had also mentioned in his litany of statements, who had access to maltese clothes, the technology and expert associated who had been concealing the bombs precisely inside a Toshiba Radio, and plenty of ideological and financial motive. Abu Talb. But he's with Khreesat, the Jordanian/PLFP/CIA/...etc..etc asset/agent, so that's a no-go area.

Really? What was his motive? Framing a Libyan agent?

I have checked some articles about him. He became a suspect because he was in Malta two months before the attack. It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.
My personal theory is that he could very well be involved, but since this probably wasn't a one man job, I fail to see how this could exonorate Mergadi.

McHrozni

 

[Buncrana]

That's a standard in an investigation, isn't it? You need to have a suspect with motive, means and opportunity. If you have that and circumstantial evidence supports he was the cultprit and you have no one else who could do the deed (means and opportunity) and nothing to exclude him, it's highly unlikely someone else was the cultprit.

Yes, I agree that is absolutely the standards required, however that's not what I'm asking.

What is the "evidence, strongly suggesting" Megrahi's guilt that you are happy with?

Is it Gauci's identification?

This, despite all the other 'evidence' produced strongly suggesting the sale occurred on a day Megrahi could not have been the purchaser? Many feel this lends a greater suggestion than that presented by the prosecution and accepted by the court.

Maybe that Toshiba Radio's used to house the bomb were purchased in bulk by Libya?

That this fact alone thereby also strongly implicates Megrahi? Despite having not a shred of evidence that he ever purchased a Toshiba, is a premise beyond simple circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps the evidence that Megrahi placed the bomb-bag onboard an Air Malta flight at Luqa?

Well, as you, I, every single investigating official, the judges at Zeist and everyone else knows, there is not a shred of evidence supporting this either.

Or is it the discovery of the MST timer?

So, what do you contend is the irrefutable evidence with which there really is no point speculating any further about, and Megrahi's guilt is beyond reasonable doubt?

Really? What was his motive? Framing a Libyan agent?

Financial reward appears to be the most inducing factor.

I have checked some articles about him. He became a suspect because he was in Malta two months before the attack. It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.
My personal theory is that he could very well be involved, but since this probably wasn't a one man job, I fail to see how this could exonorate Mergadi.

McHrozni

I was merely pointing out that there were others, contradicting your assertion, that had the means, motive and purpose to attack an american airliner.

 

[Rolfe]

Welcome back, McHrozni.

I have checked some articles about him. He became a suspect because he was in Malta two months before the attack. It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.
My personal theory is that he could very well be involved, but since this probably wasn't a one man job, I fail to see how this could exonorate Mergadi.

Um, it's "a little bit more complicated than that", by a metric mile. The name's usually rendered as Megrahi, by the way.

Could we stick to the subject of the thread? The subject of the thread is Tony Gauci and the "mystery shopper", the man who apparently bought the clothes from him which were found blast-damaged on the ground in Dumfriesshire. Other matters will no doubt come up as relevant, but we are actually focussing on the clothes purchase here.

If you read the thread, you may notice that all the regular posters have discounted the possibility that Megrahi was the purchaser. You seemed to be saying you think that's wrong, and that Megrahi actually was the purchaser. If you want to elaborate on that, then fire away.

If on the other hand you're saying that he wasn't the purchaser, but you believe he planted the bomb anyway, then that's actually a question for a different thread. Perhaps you could go there and explain to us what evidence you're left with that pins the crime on him, if you don't have Gauci's identification of him as the purchaser of these clothes to support your case.

You could try this thread, though the earier pages are pretty irrelevant now.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85523

By the way, you may need to re-think this bit.

It wasn't even established he was in Malta during the attack.

Uh, yes he was. He was checking in for a flight to Tripoli at the next checkin desk to the one being used for KA180, at the same time. Whether that implicates him or exonerates him depends entirely on what you think of the significance of Bogomira Erac's souvenir printout.

However, again that has no direct relevance to the purchase of the clothes from Gauci's shop, which is what we're talking about here.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, I just saw there was an earlier post.

It seems to me you aren't actually trying to figure out anything other than poke holes in what became the official story of the Lockerbie bombing. By doing so, you're making the same leap of faith as all conspiracy theorists must necessarily do: to believe that a few holes in a theory completely discredit the theory as a whole.

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi had motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks.

Uh, no. Please, please, please tell us about this "motive, means and opportunity". The motive that's suggested is that he was a Libyan intelligence agent acting under orders. I believe he was indeed a Libyan intelligence agent, though others have suggested that was never adequately proved. I know of no evidence at all to show that he was given orders to carry out this crime however.

Means? Could you elaborate? He was never shown to have been in posession of any of the components of the bomb, or indeed components of any bomb, or ever to have been involved in bomb-making. The only items in the bomb suitcase alleged to have been traced to him were the clothes apparently bought from Gauci, and it is this purchase we are specifically querying.

Opportunity? Could you elaborate, again? You appeared not even to know that he was at Luqa airport on the morning of the disaster. That might count as opportunity if you could show two things. First that the bomb did indeed pass through Luqa airport that morning, and second that Megrahi had an opportunity to introduce it. If you could actually show the former, we might even, perhaps, infer the latter. However, you really do have to elaborate on that.

Near as I can tell, no one else had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the attacks. If that is true, he carried out the attack - no one else who could would want to.

However, that simply isn't true.

The minimum you have to do in such a case is to produce a different suspect, who could, in theory, carry out the attacks. If you have done so, point me to your evidence and theory.

That is a completely irrelevant point. It is not a requirement for a successful legal appeal against conviction that an alternative suspect must be identified. If the evidence that Megrahi didn't is not sufficient to support the conviction, then that fact stands on its own.

(I think Ahmed Jibril, +/- Marwan Khreesat, Abu Talb, Dalkamoni and the rest of their merry band probably did it, but that's actually irrelevant.)

Again, the purchase wasn't strange at all. If he packed the bomb among his own clothes, someone could recognize it as his clothes. True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

Even if we accept all that, the question you need to answer is, was Megrahi the person who did that?

Your story is thus such:
We have a government agent of a country strongly supporting a nationalist cause, including terrorism. A terrorist attack occurs, originating in a country the said agent was based, using explosives that were avaiable to his country. The bomb used is of the same variety as has been used by the terrorists supported by the agents' country. The detonator alledgedly* used by the terrorist matches detonators used in terrorist attacks supported by the agents' country. The government agent was at the airport when the bag was first accepted by airport security. He left the country for his country of origin at the same time.

That's not my story, that's the allegations against Megrahi. You might like to look into the evidence for all of it, when you've a minute or six.

But, because the testimony of someone who probably sold clothes that went next to the bomb is unreliable, it was all a conspiracy to frame the agent and his country.

Er, no. Do you think Megrahi bought those clothes or not? Because if he did, then he was part of the terrorist gang and you've proved your case, end of story.

However, if he didn't, just what evidence do you have left to support the proposal that he had anything to do with it?

No, Rolfe, there is no significant speculation here, unless you can produce a different viable suspect, that would have the access to the explosive used, new clothes from Malta, technology to conceal the bomb in a Toshiba radio and a motive to blow up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland and not come forward with any demands or something similar. Unless you can produce that, all you have is speculation.

For about the tenth time, it is possible be aware that someone convicted of a crime probably didn't do it, without knowing who did. Compare the Jill Dando murder, where it was perfectly possible to see that the evidence used to convict Barry George was beyond tenuous, without having the first clue who actually did it. The appeal court took that view, and George was released. The case has never been solved.

access to [1] the explosive used, [2] new clothes from Malta, [3] technology to conceal the bomb in a Toshiba radio and [4] a motive to blow up a plane

OK, if you insist, once again.
[1] Ahmed Jibril had Semtex, a regular supply of the stuff
[2] Abu Talb had a house full of new clothes brought from Malta
[3] Marwan Khreesat was nicked by the German police in possession of a bomb he had concealed in a Toshiba radio
[4] Ahmed Jibril was paid about $10 million by the Iranian government, apparently relating to the offering of a reward for any group who would carry out the revenge desired for the shooting down of IA655 on 3rd July 1988 by the USS Vincennes.

But that's not the point. The evidence against Megrahi stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of whether or not you have another suspect. We are not suggesting that Megrahi didn't do it because we are convinced Jibril et al. did. We are suggesting that Jibril et al. might have done it because the evidence that Megrahi did it is bordering on the laughable. Do you follow this?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

True, second hand clothing might be a better idea. Then again, it might not, since second hand stores typically have much less in the way of choice than stores selling new stuff, and it is more likely he would be remembered as someone who bought that particular piece of clothing. Chances for that are typically smaller by buying a new piece of clothing.

I'm just picking this out because I skipped it before.

First, the second-hand clothes shops I've seen have had piles and piles of random stuff. But that's not really the point.

You're not thinking. How was the blast-damaged clothing traced? Initially by a label on one of the items saying "Made in Malta". That enabled the investigators to trace the manufacturer, and subsequently the manufacturers of some of the other items, all on Malta. Because these items were very new, it was (apparently) possibly to discover which shop they had been supplied to, and then question the shopkeeper.

Suppose these had been second-hand clothes. How would they have been traced? First you have to find the manufacturer. OK, done that. Go and talk to him. These clothes are several years old, is it likely he's going to be able to tell you which shop he supplied them to? Probably not. But supposing he can tell you that, and you go to that shop. Several years have passed. How can you possibly identify the purchaser? This person is innocent, so flashing pictures of suspect bombers isn't going to help you. I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell you'd identify the original purchaser of second-hand clothes picked up in a charity shop that way.

But suppose you did.... Oh, it's not worth going on. The chances of anyone getting from the blast-damaged clothing, even with a manufacturer's label, to a particular charity shop, asking about purchases on a particular day, are negligible-to-non-existent.

McHrozni, will you think about this, instead of just throwing out random debunking noises for the sake of it! It's not a massive point, but it's emblematic of your dismissive attitude and lack of serious thought about the matter.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

Could we stick to the subject of the thread? The subject of the thread is Tony Gauci and the "mystery shopper", the man who apparently bought the clothes from him which were found blast-damaged on the ground in Dumfriesshire. Other matters will no doubt come up as relevant, but we are actually focussing on the clothes purchase here.

Well, if you're going that way, all I can say is that check this stundie nomination:
It is important to consider each idea in isolation for the best perception...

There is fairly little reason in looking at just one small bit of evidence and calling it in doubt. Yes, I do agree it is possible Mergadi wasn't the shopper. I also believe that all other evidence is fairly convincing in that he was involved in the operation. No, I don't believe he worked alone.

Opportunity? Could you elaborate, again? You appeared not even to know that he was at Luqa airport on the morning of the disaster. That might count as opportunity if you could show two things. First that the bomb did indeed pass through Luqa airport that morning, and second that Megrahi had an opportunity to introduce it. If you could actually show the former, we might even, perhaps, infer the latter. However, you really do have to elaborate on that.

I did check out the story. Him being definitively placed on Luqa airport when the bomb was placed on the plane opens plentiful possibilities. Again, no, I don't believe he acted alone.

You do demand an unreasonable standard of evidence, however. It's fairly obvious I won't be able to show that. However since you can't even place your alternative suspect on Malta within a month of the attack, I don't really see why I should.

Again, I would agree both were probably involved.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Means? Could you elaborate? He was never shown to have been in posession of any of the components of the bomb, or indeed components of any bomb, or ever to have been involved in bomb-making. The only items in the bomb suitcase alleged to have been traced to him were the clothes apparently bought from Gauci, and it is this purchase we are specifically querying.

He was an agent of the Libyan government. Libyan government had a history of sponsoring terror bombings, and was in posession of explosives and the technology to produce the bomb like the one that destroyed the plane over Lockerbie. That is means and a motive (government mission) without any further investigation.
I already covered opportunity as far as I can in an earlier post.

That is a completely irrelevant point. It is not a requirement for a successful legal appeal against conviction that an alternative suspect must be identified. If the evidence that Megrahi didn't is not sufficient to support the conviction, then that fact stands on its own.

Perhaps, but then again, we aren't in a law trial, but in a forum, debating the evidence in favor or against his conviction. Thus far the only thing standing against his conviction is that some of the evidence favoring it is in doubt.

That may (or may not) be enough for you to win a trial, but we do know a trial result doesn't guarantee the judgment was fair and lawful.

Even if we accept all that, the question you need to answer is, was Megrahi the person who did that?

I think he was a critical component in the plot. For example, I do find it fairly plausible that Iranians cooperated with Libyan agents to blow up a western airliner.

Er, no. Do you think Megrahi bought those clothes or not? Because if he did, then he was part of the terrorist gang and you've proved your case, end of story.

The evidence that he did is in doubt. That does not mean it is wrong. There is no evidence that it was someone else doing the shopping.

However, if he didn't, just what evidence do you have left to support the proposal that he had anything to do with it?

The fact he was a Libyan agent covers a substantial amount, as seen above, especially since the said bomb was fairly in line with many other Libyan actions.

For about the tenth time, it is possible be aware that someone convicted of a crime probably didn't do it, without knowing who did. Compare the Jill Dando murder, where it was perfectly possible to see that the evidence used to convict Barry George was beyond tenuous, without having the first clue who actually did it. The appeal court took that view, and George was released. The case has never been solved.

I'm not familiar with that case, but the circle of suspects here isn't very wide at all. I suspect this was different in the murder case you're pulling out as an example?

OK, if you insist, once again.
[1] Ahmed Jibril had Semtex, a regular supply of the stuff
[2] Abu Talb had a house full of new clothes brought from Malta
[3] Marwan Khreesat was nicked by the German police in possession of a bomb he had concealed in a Toshiba radio
[4] Ahmed Jibril was paid about $10 million by the Iranian government, apparently relating to the offering of a reward for any group who would carry out the revenge desired for the shooting down of IA655 on 3rd July 1988 by the USS Vincennes.

None of the said connections to the crime are stronger than Megradis'. I explicitly stated I didn't believe he acted alone, I think?

But that's not the point. The evidence against Megrahi stands or falls on its own merits, irrespective of whether or not you have another suspect.

In a court, yes. But we aren't in a court, right?

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

Well, if you're going that way, all I can say is that check this stundie nomination:
It is important to consider each idea in isolation for the best perception...

There is fairly little reason in looking at just one small bit of evidence and calling it in doubt. Yes, I do agree it is possible Mergadi wasn't the shopper. I also believe that all other evidence is fairly convincing in that he was involved in the operation. No, I don't believe he worked alone.

Just a small comment, but the name is usually rendered Megrahi.

I don't have the slightest problem looking at any particular piece of evidence, or at the case as a whole. However, this thread is entitled "Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper". So far, you've offered no discussion at all as regards the subject of the thread!

You've suggested that it isn't at all odd that a terrorist might purchase clothes to pack round a bomb in this way. That's fine. Most people, almost everybody in fact, thinks it's probable that a terrorist did exactly that. That doesn't at all illuminate whether or not the purchaser was Megrahi.

You've suggested that even if Megrahi wasn't the purchaser, you still think he was involved in the bombing. Fine. However, it's simply off topic for this thread. There is another thread discussing the totality of the affair, or we could even start a new one if you like. But this thread is about the Gauci evidence.

I did check out the story. Him being definitively placed on Luqa airport when the bomb was placed on the plane opens plentiful possibilities. Again, no, I don't believe he acted alone.

Er, no. There is NO evidence that the bomb was introduced into the system at Luqa. It's as certain as reasonably can be that it wasn't. So much so that Air Malta was successful in two legal actions against media allegations that it was.

This is currently the subject of discussion in another thread. While of course it's all inter-related, it's very difficult to keep things straight if you insist in arguing points completely out of the relevant threads.

You do demand an unreasonable standard of evidence, however. It's fairly obvious I won't be able to show that. However since you can't even place your alternative suspect on Malta within a month of the attack, I don't really see why I should.

Again, I would agree both were probably involved.

This is getting tedious. I only mentioned Jibril's group because you were so insistent on having an alternative suspect. I'll say it one more time. There is absolutely no reason at all in the wide world for it to be necessary to have another suspect, in order to question whether Megrahi had anything to do with it.

Why is it necessary to place Abu Talb on Malta within a month of the attacks, in order to believe that Abdelbaset al-Megrahi didn't buy the clothes from Gauci? You're not making any sense at all. (If you're really interested, you could look at the evidence supporting the allegation that Abu Talb was in Malta on 23rd November.)

Please, could we discuss the purchase of the clothes in this thread, and take the rest of it elsewhere?

Rolfe.