It's all very murky. The first witness who was bribed to give evidence against both Megrahi and Fhimah was a guy called Majid Giaka. He was a Libyan garage mechanic who fancied a cushy life as a CIA asset and informer. The trouble was, he didn't have a lot of useful information to give for the $1500 a month (plus benefits in kind) he was being paid by the Americans.
At first, when he was pushed for intelligence relating to Lockerbie, he had nothing to say, but later, after the CIA had threatened to dump him without a penny, he suddenly "remembered" that he'd seen both suspects making the bomb and putting it on the plane. He was the star witness who would deliver the conviction.
However, during the trial, the defence was successful in having the unedited versions of a lot of CIA telexes admitted in evidence, and once the blacked-out parts were visible it was clear the US authorities had knowingly put forward a witness who was making stuff up for money. The judges disallowed his testimony, but somehow managed to convict anyway. For no reason I can see, nobody criticised the US input for this, or harboured any suspicions that perhaps other parts of the evidence had been a bit sexed-up as well.
Gauci's evidence was odd, because while it seems fairly clear he really did sell the clothes that were in the bomb bag, the day he seemed most likely to have made that sale was a day Megrahi wasn't in Malta. In addition, his original description of the man didn't describe Megrahi - the face might have been a reasonable fit for him (or for about a squillion other people), but the age, height and build were way out. This from a man who was well used to judging people by what size clothes would fit them.
The prosecution appear to have tortured the evidence to breaking point to make Gauci's description fit a day when Megrahi was in the town, and to get him to pick out Megrahi as the purchaser, in photo-lineups. By the time he finally saw Megrahi in the flesh, half the population of the western world could probably have picked him out, so widespread had been the publicity, but the best Gauci could manage was, “
Not exactly the man I saw in the shop. Ten years ago I saw him, but the man who look a little bit like exactly is the number 5.”
The judges bought it. They even said they were impressed by his uncertainty, as it showed he was genuinely trying to remember! The appeal judges said, the court was entitled to take that view, appeal dismissed.
Even during the investigation, the Scottish police were offering Tony Gauci holidays in Scotland and other inducements to keep him on-side. His brother Paul, initially hostile to the investigation, began to get very interested in a reward. There have been a lot of weasel words about nobody having been
promised any money before the trial, but it's now common knowledge Tony got $2 million and Paul $1 million. I thought Paul (who didn't give evidence) had been rewarded for his part in establishing the day of the purchase, but in fact he gave a clear statement at one stage (not presented to the court) that the date was the day Megrahi wasn't there.
I'm not sure where to look for the link now, but the rationale for paying Paul was given as reward for his role in keeping Tony (who was a bit simple) up to scratch. In fact Paul was quite clearly coaching Tony to provide the evidence the police wanted. I can't remember exactly where this information originated, but there's no dispute the pair of them recently moved to Australia and have a very luxurious lifestyle.
I don't think the US relatives have a clue about any of this. They're getting their information from Duggan, who seems simply to be making up whatever he thinks will keep the level of outrage in the USA at satisfyingly high levels. The money might even have come out of the $2.7 billion Gadaffi paid out in order for Libya to be allowed to rejoin the civilised world. But in any case, it's peanuts compared to the budget the CIA has for running informers and paying out for information received.
I'm 100% sure that conviction should never have been brought, on the basis of "beyond reasonable doubt". Anyone who wants to understand this should read the judgements. I'm 99.99% sure the appeal that was abandoned would have succeeded, in the light of the new evidence that was available (including that Gauci was bribed). I'm about 95% sure Megrahi didn't do it - the 5% because I don't know who did, and not knowing that, it's hard to dismiss any possibility out of hand.
I just re-watched the 2008 BBC documentary on this -
The Conspiracy Files. This programme has a format where it builds up a conspiracy, then shows how it's all complete nonsense. Except it doesn't pan out that way in this episode. The half is not told in that programme, as far as the dodginess of some of the evidence is concerned (well, they only had an hour!), but in the end they conclude that the appeal hearings will reveal the real truth.
The appeal Megrahi had to abandon in order to be allowed to return home to die. The appeal that would probably have been concluded by now, if he'd stayed in jail in Scotland. But he was released 11 months ago, being told he only had 3 months to live, when the date for the appeal coming back to court was 3 months from the date of his release.
Frankly, the scandal here is that a dying man was told he wouldn't live to see his appeal come to court, but if he agreed to abandon the appeal he could go home to spend his last three months with his family. He's on record as saying he desperately wanted to clear his name, but given that he was terminally ill he couldn't take any more and was desperate to get home.
The timing of the release was awfully convenient for the authorities who had shown every indication of not wanting that appeal to happen, who were also the authorities who had the power to grant the compassionate release. If people are wondering why it seems it might have been a bit premature, this is the aspect that might be considered.
Rolfe.
