Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?

[Rolfe]

I believe we need another thread on this. The one I started in 2007 is very long now, and goes down a lot of dead ends on the way. Also, we haven't had anyone prepared to stand by the conviction of Megrahi on the evidence produced in court, until now. The other threads are essentially dealing with the question of what other explanations might fit the facts, assuming Megrahi wasn't guilty.

McHrozni has been arguing, in the mystery shopper thread, that Megrahi was actually guilty of the bombing. This is a fairly major derail, because he's not apparently trying to defend Gauci's identification of Megrahi, but rather going off into other aspects of the case.

So here it is. I'm quoting McHrozni's main point, and I hope he will come to this thread to argue it.

The evidence suggests, very strongly, that Megradi [Megrahi] 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.

And then again,

You can't claim the only man in the world could do an act that did happen (Lockerbie bombing in this case) didn't do it, unless you can show another person who could've done it.

We haven't really got much further than that, so I don't see a problem with starting again.

As I see it, the points of evidence put forward as connecting Megrahi to the bombing were as follows.

1. Tony Gauci, after much vacillating and changes of mind (and a "reward" of $2 million), said the person who bought the clothes believed to have been in the bomb suitcase "resembled [Megrahi] a lot".
2. Evidence was led to suggest that an unaccompanied suitcase had arrived at Frankfurt airport from Malta on KM180. Megrahi was at Luqa airport in Malta when KM180 was checking in.
3. Megrahi had business dealings with Edwin Bollier, Stazi agent and proprietor of the company that manufactured the timing device believed to have triggered the explosion, timing devices that were sold to Libya.

That, frankly, is that. Yes, he was a Libyan intelligence officer (I think, though it is said that was never proved). And yes, Libya did some very bad things. But while these facts may be relevant once actual evidence has linked Megrahi to the crime, they don't add up to anything without it. James Bond might equally stand accused!

The Gauci evidence was the part highlighted by the SCCRC when they declared a possible miscarriage of justice and gave leave to appeal. There were other points (the report refers to six grounds for appeal but then only lists four), but the Gauci part was all they made public.

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

The tracing of the suitcase back to an alleged point of origin at Luqa was never sound. It wasn't part of the grounds for appeal because no new evidence was unearthed about it, but that doesn't make the original decision any more reasonable.

The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown case, and one which has to be considered along with the rest of the circumstantial evidence in the case.

Not only that, but the evidence presented to suggest that an item of unaccompanied luggage came off KM180 (even though it didn't go on in the first place) was very weak, and open to a number of alternative explanations. The theory that Megrahi planted this bomb depends absolutely on the bomb having been put on board at Luqa, because he was at Luqa that morning. However, that inference is strikingly weak.

The third point above is actually quite tenuous. Bollier manufactured the timing devices and sold them to Libya in 1986. There is no evidence that Megrahi was involved in this transaction, or ever had one of the timers in his possession. The devices were scattered abroad over the following couple of years, with two being found in Togo and two in Senegal. In fact, the Megrahi/Bollier connection seems to be little more than, Bollier dealt with Libya a lot, and Megrahi was one of the Libyans he dealt with.

So, that's about it, as far as the main points go. This is the evidence McHrozni believes supports Megrahi's guilt, and more, apparently makes him the only person in the world who could have carried out the bombing.

I think if either the Gauci identification or the origin of the suitcase at Luqa could be made to stand up, then the case would be very arguable. However, both appear to be on very shaky foundations. It appears that the original reasoning was circular - Megrahi must have been the buyer of the clothes because Megrahi was in a position to have put the bomb on KM180, but at the same time, the bomb must have been on KM180 because that's where Megrahi (who bought the clothes) was at the time. Uh, right....

I'm going to bed now, but I think we have the start of a discussion.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

There is definitely a case to make! It was made, loud and clear, and repeated by British police and authorities, American investigators and politicians (about all of them), the Kamp van Zeist judges, the "maintream media," and so on...

And to get to the conclusions that Megrahi himself sent the bomb suitcae knowingly to Flight 103, they followed, what? the Yellow Brick road? Who can speak up in defense of the best and brightest of Western Civilization?

Who can just say it again that he convicted Lockerbie bomber was rightly convicted and most likely had... some... role...(??) in the bombing. ? Be specific - what role based on what clues? - if at all possible.

Motive, means, opportunity? What kinds of explosives did the Libyans have access to? Radios? Grievances? Circumstantial stuff, speculation, off-topic rants, anything goes except that last one.

Don't worry I won't be badgering anyone much this weekend. Let's just see some sane, reasoned re-affirmations of why the "official story" is just fine here.

 

[Rolfe]

One thing I meant to say is that I think we should keep any discussion of tampering with or fabrication of evidence out of this thread. That really is speculation and suspicion, no matter how well-founded, and nothing has ever been proved.

I don't think the case stands up even if the MST-13 timer and the Horton fragment and the Erac printout are all completely on the level. So I think we should concentrate on that aspect.

Rolfel

 

[McHrozni]

As I see it, the points of evidence put forward as connecting Megrahi to the bombing were as follows.

1. Tony Gauci, after much vacillating and changes of mind (and a "reward" of $2 million), said the person who bought the clothes believed to have been in the bomb suitcase "resembled [Megrahi] a lot".
2. Evidence was led to suggest that an unaccompanied suitcase had arrived at Frankfurt airport from Malta on KM180. Megrahi was at Luqa airport in Malta when KM180 was checking in.
3. Megrahi had business dealings with Edwin Bollier, Stazi agent and proprietor of the company that manufactured the timing device believed to have triggered the explosion, timing devices that were sold to Libya.

That, frankly, is that. Yes, he was a Libyan intelligence officer (I think, though it is said that was never proved). And yes, Libya did some very bad things. But while these facts may be relevant once actual evidence has linked Megrahi to the crime, they don't add up to anything without it. James Bond might equally stand accused!

You're a bit too obnoxious for my taste to start another discussion with you, but let me point out that James Bond is/was/would be a part of MI-6, which to my knowledge, never bombed airliners over UK. Therefore he couldn't be a suspect here.

Secondly, you're apparently mistaking legal evidence for investigative evidence. In an investigation, everything matters: rumors, hearsay and other inadmissible pieces that can't go in court. Megrahi was connected to the bombing before Gaucis' testimony. That's why his testimony became questionable in the first place - he saw is picture in a newspaper before identifying him as the shopper.

The case of Lockerbie bombing is suspect because some of the evidence is suspect. If the evidence presented stands, then the case stands.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Have you any idea how ridiculous that comparison is? We're not talking about a spaceship, we're talking about the surface of the Earth, with all it's 6 billion people on board.

It's called reductio ad absurdum. You're claiming that it is never a question if someone else could be the cultprit. I have demonstrated an option in where it would be. I'm glad you agree your idea was wrong. Now I will apperently have to show you some more likely options. I really thought you'd be smart enough to figure it out, I explicitly said we didn't have such an extreme case, but alas, at least I'll know why to ignore you.

Here is a more likely scenario: money was stolen from a safe using a key. There is but one key to the said safe. It is located in another safe, that only one person has access to. That safe was untouched. There is evidence the key was removed by this person (for lawful or for nefarious purposes) and no evidence anyone else came in touch with the key.
It is reasonable to assume this person was involved (willingly or not) in the theft, is it not? I'm quite sure the defense will be the one that will need to show another scenario was likely in such a case. Do we have any lawyers that would state their opinion?

Another, even more relevant scenario: an airliner is bombed by an almost unique bomb. There is only one organization that has ever fielded such a device, and that organization has a history of airline bombings that fit the profile of this bombing. The device is sufficiently complex, sufficiently unique and sufficiently unknown to rule out copying and a random match. An agent of the said organization is definitively placed at the airport when the doomed plane took off, with plentiful time to execute whatever plan he wanted. You're claiming it is unreasonable to demand another viable scenario from someone who is claiming the agent had nothing to do with it. In fact, you're calling it a stundie.

Another scenario that happened not far from me a few months ago: an alcoholic divorced mother was at home with her two toddlers for the night. In the middle of the night she called her father to come help her revive the kids. Both kids were dead by the time any help arrived - suffocated by a pillow. The apartment doors were locked from the inside, there was no sign of a forced entry, and the key of the apartment was in the inside keyhole the whole time, which effectively prevents the door from being unlocked from the outside - even with a key. All windows were shut from the inside (cold winter), again, no sign of forced entry. Needless to say, there was no evidence anyone else was in the apartment at the time.
You're claiming it's reasonable to assume someone other than mother would be a culprit, without providing who or why?
Even the mothers' defender would disagree with you, since he pointed to a neighbor as a possible culprit. Are you calling his defense a stundie as well?

The spaceship around the Moon was just to make you agree with the general principle: it is possible to have a case where there is only one possible suspect. Obviously the real cases are different. I toyed with the idea by presenting you with a flying airplane, a submarine, a deserted island, a rescue boat ... all would work, but I wanted to pick a sufficiently extreme version in order for you to agree with the principle more easily. Near as I can tell, it worked rather well, since you fell for the unlikeliness of the situation, and agreed that the principle was reasonable, even if the circumstances were not. As you see above, I can tailor an adequately likely situation, it just requires a whole lot more text, and you'd probably try to find a hole somewhere (and possibly even find it) before you'd agree the principle was sound, even though a slightly different set of circumstances would preclude that as well. Now you know why the Moon mission was chosen in that example.

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

You're a bit too obnoxious for my taste to start another discussion with you, but let me point out that James Bond is/was/would be a part of MI-6, which to my knowledge, never bombed airliners over UK. Therefore he couldn't be a suspect here.

You're a bit humour-impaired today, don't you think?

Secondly, you're apparently mistaking legal evidence for investigative evidence. In an investigation, everything matters: rumors, hearsay and other inadmissible pieces that can't go in court. Megrahi was connected to the bombing before Gaucis' testimony. That's why his testimony became questionable in the first place - he saw is picture in a newspaper before identifying him as the shopper.

Well, come on. What are you actually talking about? Do you believe Giaka was telling the truth? I've been waiting for someone to take that line explicitly, but up till now that's been in vain.

Do tell!

The case of Lockerbie bombing is suspect because some of the evidence is suspect. If the evidence presented stands, then the case stands.

Good, you're getting it. The evidence as presented does not appear to stand.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

Good, you're getting it. The evidence as presented does not appear to stand

One thing I meant to say is that I think we should keep any discussion of tampering with or fabrication of evidence out of this thread. That really is speculation and suspicion, no matter how well-founded, and nothing has ever been proved.

I don't think the case stands up even if the MST-13 timer and the Horton fragment and the Erac printout are all completely on the level. So I think we should concentrate on that aspect.

You aren't very keen at following the rules of your threads, are you.

McHrozni

 

[Rolfe]

Sigh. You're not very good at reading for comprehension, are you?

The evidence as presented does not appear to stand.
I don't think the case stands up even if the MST-13 timer and the Horton fragment and the Erac printout are all completely on the level.

There's no contradiction there. The evidence doesn't stand in the normal way of examining these things. It's certainly interesting to debate whether certain items of evidence may have been tampered with. Such things have happened. However, it is absolutely unnecessary to show that any item of evidence was tampered with in any way at all, to cast fatal doubt on Megrahi's alleged guilt.

So let's do it the easy way.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

Sigh. You're not very good at reading for comprehension, are you?

The evidence as presented does not appear to stand.
I don't think the case stands up even if the MST-13 timer and the Horton fragment and the Erac printout are all completely on the level.

There's no contradiction there. The evidence doesn't stand in the normal way of examining these things. It's certainly interesting to debate whether certain items of evidence may have been tampered with. Such things have happened. However, it is absolutely unnecessary to show that any item of evidence was tampered with in any way at all, to cast fatal doubt on Megrahi's alleged guilt.

So let's do it the easy way.

Rolfe.

Yes, let's do it the easy way.

You missed this part:
One thing I meant to say is that I think we should keep any discussion of tampering with or fabrication of evidence out of this thread. That really is speculation and suspicion, no matter how well-founded, and nothing has ever been proved.

And this part:
You aren't very keen at following the rules of your threads, are you.

Will you now manage to figure out what I was telling you?

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Yes, let's do it the easy way.

You missed this part:
One thing I meant to say is that I think we should keep any discussion of tampering with or fabrication of evidence out of this thread. That really is speculation and suspicion, no matter how well-founded, and nothing has ever been proved.

And this part:
You aren't very keen at following the rules of your threads, are you.

Will you now manage to figure out what I was telling you?

McHrozni

So please point out where, in this thread, Rolfe introduced "any discussion of tampering with or fabrication of evidence".

 

[McHrozni]

So please point out where, in this thread, Rolfe introduced "any discussion of tampering with or fabrication of evidence".

Here:

The case of Lockerbie bombing is suspect because some of the evidence is suspect. If the evidence presented stands, then the case stands.

Good, you're getting it. The evidence as presented does not appear to stand.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Here:

Funny, I don't see the words "tampering", "fabrication", or anything remotely similar there. As Rolfe explained in post number 8 (which, unless you're in the habit of quoting and responding to posts you don't read, I know you saw), his position is that even from the point of view that every single piece of evidence is legitimate, that it still doesn't stand (ie, it doesn't conclusively prove al-Megrahi's guilt).

I happen to disagree with Rolfe on that, but your bizarre up-is-down, black-is-white assertion that Rolfe saying "let's not discuss whether the evidence was tampered with or not, because even if it wasn't it doesn't prove the case" is really a case of Rolfe attempting to discuss whether the evidence was tampered with or not is just...nonsensical.

 

[McHrozni]

Funny, I don't see the words "tampering", "fabrication", or anything remotely similar there. As Rolfe explained in post number 8 (which, unless you're in the habit of quoting and responding to posts you don't read, I know you saw), his position is that even from the point of view that every single piece of evidence is legitimate, that it still doesn't stand (ie, it doesn't conclusively prove al-Megrahi's guilt).

Hm. It appears we might have had a slight misunderstanding.

By saying this:
The case of Lockerbie bombing is suspect because some of the evidence is suspect. If the evidence presented stands, then the case stands.

I was trying to convey the message:
If the evidence was not tampered with (stands), Meghradi is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If it was tampered with, the case is suspect and doesn't stand.

To which Rolfe replied:
Good, you're getting it. The evidence as presented does not appear to stand.

Which, from my point of view, can only mean that the evidence was tampered with, triggering this series of replies.
However, if Rolfe meant to say something else, then I apologize, it was a misunderstanding.

I happen to disagree with Rolfe on that, but your bizarre up-is-down, black-is-white assertion that Rolfe saying "let's not discuss whether the evidence was tampered with or not, because even if it wasn't it doesn't prove the case" is really a case of Rolfe attempting to discuss whether the evidence was tampered with or not is just...nonsensical.

I agree it is nonsensical, but seeing how desperate Rolfe is for everyone to agree Meghradi was an innocent victim of the circumstance (or framed), I can imagine him grasping at any straw, including something this nonsensical.

McHrozni

 

[A'isha]

Hm. It appears we might have had a slight misunderstanding.

By saying this:
The case of Lockerbie bombing is suspect because some of the evidence is suspect. If the evidence presented stands, then the case stands.

I was trying to convey the message:
If the evidence was not tampered with (stands), Meghradi is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If it was tampered with, the case is suspect and doesn't stand.

To which Rolfe replied:
Good, you're getting it. The evidence as presented does not appear to stand.

Which, from my point of view, can only mean that the evidence was tampered with, triggering this series of replies.
However, if Rolfe meant to say something else, then I apologize, it was a misunderstanding.

Hmm...I think I see what you mean, and what happened here.

From his followup in post number 8, I took Rolfe's last reply there to mean not "Yes, the evidence was tampered with, therefore it doesn't stand", but instead "Even if the evidence was not tampered with, it doesn't stand [as sufficient to establish al-Megrahi's guilt], so therefore the case as a whole doesn't stand."

That is, while you were using "stand" to mean specifically "not tampered with", he was using "stand" in a much broader way, to mean "sufficient in a court of law to establish guilt even though un-tampered with" (the way the common phrase "that'll never stand up in court" means that it's insufficient evidence, not that it's fake evidence).

Though, naturally, Rolfe can speak for himself about what he really meant.

I agree it is nonsensical, but seeing how desperate Rolfe is for everyone to agree Meghradi was an innocent victim of the circumstance (or framed), I can imagine him grasping at any straw, including something this nonsensical.

McHrozni

As I said, I disagree with Rolfe about al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing. But I don't think he's doing what you think he's doing in this particular instance.

 

[Rolfe]

Ok, let's go out and come in again. Evidence doesn't have to be tampered with or fabricated, in order to fall. Most evidence is not tampered with, but evidence falls all the time. I sort of thought you understood that.

I was trying to convey the message:
If the evidence was not tampered with (stands), Meghradi is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If it was tampered with, the case is suspect and doesn't stand.

I have already said, for the purposes of this thread, let's not rely on any suggestion or assertion that any evidence was tampered with. It's just not necessary.

You believe that the case against Megrahi is beyond reasonable doubt, in that case. Please return to the OP then, and explain why you think this evidence proves the case.

By the way, the guy's name is عبد الباسط محمد علي المقرحي‎
(I'm not that smart, it's a copy-paste from Wikipedia). It's usually rendered as M-E-G-R-A-H-I. If you read a bit more about the case, maybe you'll start to get it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

As I said, I disagree with Rolfe about al-Megrahi's guilt in the Lockerbie bombing.

Excellent! I'd be very pleased if you'd go back to the OP and explain why you think the evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

You believe that the case against Megrahi is beyond reasonable doubt, in that case. Please return to the OP then, and explain why you think this evidence proves the case.

He purchased a random and nonsensical collection clothes and an umbrella, which matched the clothes that were packed next to a bomb. He was definitively placed at the crime scene. He was a part of the intelligence apparatus of a country whose intelligence apparatus carried out similar bombings. The intelligence apparatus had access to the somewhat difficult to obtain explosives used in the bombing, and the timer that was used to delay the bomb. His intelligence agency had access to the bomb type that was used.

There is no direct evidence, but there is plentiful circumstantial evidence that points at his guilt. It is shown quite well that he could have executed the bombing if he wanted to (was ordered to). He was also on the airport at the same time as the plane that carried the bomb towards London (eventually). Freak coincidence is one possibility, true. But what are the chances he walked into a store bought a completely random array of clothes, which then just happened to match the clothing that was packed in a suitcase with the bomb again?

I'm sorry, if you assume the evidence was sound and still doubt his guilt, then I can't help you.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Hmm...I think I see what you mean, and what happened here.

Yes, it is the most likely explanation.

Perhaps this would be a good time to mention that English is my second language. I think I still do reasonably well, though

McHrozni

 

[Caustic Logic]

We're presuming here the evidence is legitimate, but we still can't get anywhere until people grasp what the evidence here is and what is stands AS, what it does or might say. Personally, I think accepting bad evidence cripples one's argument (witness the awkward "special defense of incrimination" with MST-13 and Malta, etc.) BUT, for sake of looking less "woo," we have

Clothes made in Malta. Ooooh, as if these couldn't be moved.

Okay, a genuine computer printout showing SOME bag from Malta sent on KM180 to Frankfurt and onto 103.

And yes, Megrahi was there.

The paper isn't 100% clear on the bag coming from Malta - it was simply coded at the right time and place that it could and probably should be from KM180. It might not be. (reasons are in the proper thread).

And we've got Gauci being willing to sorta implicate Megrahi as the buyer, on Malta, of the clothes. In what way are we accepting this as legit? His actual words, not the later "interpreatations?" If so, then it doesn't stand as clear at all and in fact specifically absolves Megrahi (reasons are in the proper thread).

And, should we consider what bad evidence (Gauci''s changing story) does for the case? How does exculpatory evidence get shifted like that (Nov 23 becomes Dec 7) absent some investigative will to deceive? And what would such a will do for the other few points?

He purchased a random and nonsensical collection clothes and an umbrella, which matched the clothes that were packed next to a bomb.

Will youplease bring that up in the proper thread and illustrate how you know this? Over there you admit he didn't buy the stuff, didn't you? And here, again, he did. You haven't slowed down and started learning yet, have you? If you show any sign of being worth engaging any more, I'll do so, otherwise enjoy your runnin around flailing "yay I debunking!!" episode.

 

[McHrozni]

Will you please bring that up in the proper thread and illustrate how you know this?

I thought we're working on an assumption the evidence presented in the case is correct?

McHrozni