Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?

[Rolfe]

How 'bout: "a guy walks into a bar in the late 80's with a bombeat radio....."

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

Well, the e-Petition is one thing to try. But the system isn't easy to work. Jim Swire seems to have worn himself down trying to get what he sees as justice. Of course, there are far fewer British victims to bear the load than there are US. I was going to say, for which we might be thankful, but that's not true. It doesn't matter which nationality you are, you're all victims.

Seems to me, the Scottish people have also become victims in this mess.

I was commenting on UK politics. The Westminster parliament is a very difficult ship to turn, as I said. That was the parliament the UK victims' families fought to a standstill for ten years, and got nowhere. The first refusal of a full inquiry happened in 1989.

The Scottish parliament wasn't even inaugurated until 1999. The first two governments there were Labour, just like the Westminster government was. No chance of much change then. And they're all a bunch of tenth-rate town councillors anyway. Then the SNP got in in 2007. I genuinely hoped for better, and it has been better, but then when the Lockerbie business blew up again last year, they behaved just as badly as Labour had, and the Conservatives before them.
Sigh.
Rolfe.

Yes. No offense, but it still astounds me that after all of the wars from waaaayyy far back to Bannockburn , Robert the Bruce, and all of the other fights for sovereinty, Scottish devolution didn't happen until 1997-99. Astounding. And yet it still seems Scotland has a way to go in their devolution. Hopefully, the Scottish people will have a hand in it going forward. Hopefully. I sincerely wish you the same liberties we have. Americans do their fair share of griping about this country, and yet many don't have the wherewithal to begin to know how to stand up and be heard in our system. Honestly, I didn't really know how, until I became involved in this case. Thankfully, however, there is a way, and we can. And I for one, can say I, along with my fellow PA103 family members did, and will continue to do so. Again, I hope you some day can do the same.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, let's not get into a Britain-versus-America political discussion. That way lies forum fights that never end.

Scotland was an independent country until 1601, when sadly the Scottish king inherited the English throne. He was thrilled with his new position, left immediately, and never returned to Scotland. The Scottish parliament was left in an impossible position, with the monarch of the country actively working for the opposition. The gory details of Darien are documented elsewhere, but the result was that in 1707, the Scots were forced to agree to an incorporating union.

The sociodynamics of this are frankly poisonous. Many people in Scotland have been persuaded that we're inherently stupid and incompetent and don't deserve to be a nation. We got the parliament back after nearly 300 years, but it's lacking in the powers it needs. Many people are trying very hard to keep it that way.

Most of the Megrahi affair in 2009-10 has been about this. Scottish opposition parties desperate to take any line they think will make the SNP look bad. Westminster governments both Labour and Conservative doing the same. They're happy to hang Scotland out to dry by bad-mouthing us to Obama, so long as it helps oppose Scottish independence. The parliament responsible for our foreign affairs is hell-bent on selling us down the river. Darien again, almost.

Yes, I wish my countrymen would get off their backsides and stand on their own feet, but there are too many people invested in keeping the "Scottish cringe" alive and well.

Just a bit of background, and we should let it drop. But the politics of this whole thing is poisonous no matter which jurisdiction you look at.

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

Well, let's not get into a Britain-versus-America political discussion. That way lies forum fights that never end.

Rolfe.

Got it. Signing off for tonight.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, it's way past time for my beauty sleep.

Just one thing I wanted to say, to try to get back on track.

Did you know why the Malta baggage handlers didn't come to Zeist? Or not? What was your point in posting that passage from the transcript?

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

never mind, not worth it.

 

[Rolfe]

Sigh. I know.

I had such high hopes for this conversation. I really want to gain an understanding of why the US relatives are so convincted that Megrahi is guilty. What are they seeing that I'm not? I was hoping for new insights and a different perspective.

It's entirely up to Bunntamas if she doesn't want to go into these issues of course. I had thought she did, and that this was why she had engaged with us elsewhere and joined the forum. I don't understand why it should be impossible to explain the evidence that underpins this view.

I tried going back into my reams of stuff that I've collected over the years. Depression overcame me, and I recognized that I had spent many years on this and was headed down a very dark path...again.

Indeed, if you feel this is making you depressed, then it's not a good conversation to have.

A) Yes, I just don't have the time to debate with you all at the lengths and detail to which you require and

Fair enough. But even addressing one or two points would be good.

B) it just wasn't worth it to re-hash all of the stuff that has already posted here and elsewhere over many years, and still not come to any tangible results on your end.

This is where I take issue a little bit. Indeed, the evidence has been well-rehearsed. However, it seems that you fit the pieces of the jigsaw into an entirely different from the one we see. I was hoping for some insight into how you see it.

And what does "not come to any tangible results on your end" mean? It seems to me that it is we who have proposed the rational arguments and the plausible explanations for the evidence and events. Why do you reject that we have "tangible results"? If you merely insist that nothing short of the quashing of the conviction is a "result", then I'm not sure why we're having the conversation to be honest.

Bottom line is, neither of us has hard evidence about the loading of the bag at Malta. Neither did the court. Combined evidence, as the court concluded, however, in my opinion still speaks volumes. Maybe not to you, but to me and others, I believe it does.

And here we come back to it again. What is this combined evidence? I don't understand why it's so hard to provide even a summary of it.

You can't surely believe that that anonymous DIA cable extract, which even you realised was clearly fabricated, is evidence of anything. I'm completely struggling to understand how Megrahi's wife's behaviour or an anonymous woman on Facebook, are evidence of guilt. But we seem to be hearing more about that sort of thing than we are about evidence.

I'll just finish by asking my past question again. Why did you post the extract from the transcripts about the Malta baggage handlers boycotting the trial? What was the point you were trying to make? Were you not aware of the reason for the boycott?

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

This is how it works, I think.
---
No proof for a bomb bag from Malta = okay, since everything else stacks up.

The everything else stacks up like so:
- Yes there is evidence for another perpetrator and method that was concealed by investigators, but everything against Megrahi stacks up better anyway.
- Sure, Gauic's first description of the buyer doesn't match Megrahi, but everything else works nicely.
- His description of the date clearly doesn't match, but he must have remembered the day wrong, since everything else...
- He never identified Megrahi at all, but everything...
- Sure Giaka's one third of the original stack-up was ruled bogus, but the remaining two thirds...
- No direct evidence for any accomplice at the airport, but every...
- Huge question marks over forensic evidence like PK/689 and PT/35(b), but ev...
- No logic to setting the timer for 7:03, but ....
- In essence, there's no case, but everything else stacks up nicely against Megrahi.

No, best not to get into the details at all. Man convicted = for real guilty, and that's it.

As soon as the conviction is officially overturned and the rest of the world has accepted it was wrong, then is the time to discuss whether the man was wrongly convicted. Then it might seem possible. But until then, it's clearly just ineffectual crankism.

Like those Barry George didn't do it people, the O.J. Simpson did do it people, and all the other complainers. Courts do not make mistakes, they create reality. Get with it.
---

 

[Bunntamas]

Did you know why the Malta baggage handlers didn't come to Zeist? Or not?

What difference does it make?

What was your point in posting that passage from the transcript?
Rolfe.

My point was that if the baggage handlers really believed they had nothing to do with it, and nothing to hide, then in my opinion, it would have behooved them to trial and testify about their lack of knowledge on the Luqa bag, regardless of what happened with the investigation prior. Initially they did agreee to come to Zeist, then they changed their minds. What made them change their minds? Was it the Maltese government? Yes, I recognize the latter is speculation, as is (I think) any reason following alleged harrassment during the investigation. Speaking of which, what evidence on tapping, harrassment, etc. do you have? And what evidence to you have that this is the reason they chose not to come to Zeist? I've read articles about Maltese (and Libyan) security tapping Maltese citizens and businesses long before Lockerbie. Articles, however are not evidence. What's yours re: the investigation and refusal to testify at Zeist?

 

[Rolfe]

What difference does it make?

I just wondered. You posted an excerpt from the transcript with no meaningful comment at all, so I wondered what point you were trying to make.

My point was that if the baggage handlers really believed they had nothing to do with it, and nothing to hide, then in my opinion, it would have behooved them to trial and testify about their lack of knowledge on the Luqa bag, regardless of what happened with the investigation prior. Initially they did agreee to come to Zeist, then they changed their minds. What made them change their minds? Was it the Maltese government? Yes, I recognize the latter is speculation, as is (I think) any reason following alleged harrassment during the investigation. Speaking of which, what evidence on tapping, harrassment, etc. do you have? And what evidence to you have that this is the reason they chose not to come to Zeist? I've read articles about Maltese (and Libyan) security tapping Maltese citizens and businesses long before Lockerbie. Articles, however are not evidence. What's yours re: the investigation and refusal to testify at Zeist?

Oh, if articles aren't evidence, then I don't think many of us have a great deal of evidence about a lot of things. It's a long time since I read about the Zeist boycott, and I've read so much I can't immediately recall the source for that. I'll see if I can find it.

I have to say, though, that I find your conspiracy theory that the Maltese government masterminded the introduction of the bag at Luqa and intervened to prevent the baggage handlers giving evidence to be improbable in the extreme.

The baggage handlers had given evidence before, and had given statements. There appears to be no hole or inconsistency or suspicious area in this evidence. Why would they be unable to repeat the performance at Zeist?

Maybe in your opinion they should have shown up on demand. Maybe they should. However, since their evidence appeared to have been pre-judged to be lies, no matter what they said, I can see why some irritation might have set in. And possibly even some alarm, given what Cannistraro was saying about them having been "suborned by a hostile intelligence service".

People may have many reasons for behaving in particular ways. For looking at their shoes when scrutinised by a stranger in the Ladies' room. For only posting a fraction of their defence material on the internet. For signing or not signing a petition. For putting things on a Facebook page. Just because in your opinion they should have done something different, doesn't mean that your interpretation of their motives is the correct one.

If you would like to see a real demonstration of someone squirming and evading and actually falisfying evidence, take a look at the testimony of Thomas Hayes, trainee chiropodist, some time.

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

Oh, if articles aren't evidence, then I don't think many of us have a great deal of evidence about a lot of things.

Exactly.

I have to say, though, that I find your conspiracy theory that the Maltese government masterminded the introduction of the bag at Luqa and intervened to prevent the baggage handlers giving evidence to be improbable in the extreme.

Okay. So what? You've come up with quite a lot of theories as well in postings past, and I've not jumped all over you for doing so, like you and others do to me. I've stated my opinions. So have you. I've said before that I'm not trying to create a CT. It's just my opinon.

Why would they be unable to repeat the performance at Zeist?

Again...Exactly.

Just because in your opinion they should have done something different, doesn't mean that your interpretation of their motives is the correct one.

I never said it was. Again, just my opinion.

 

[Buncrana]

Bunntamas, we have our opinions and suspicions as to why the Maltese staff didn't want to appear at Zeist, and you have yours. Fair enough.


What do you think of the incompetence at Frankfurt with the German authorities failing to secure the records of that airport, taking 9 months before they passed on the computer printout, and the breach of security at the Pan Am gate at Heathrow on the 21st that wasn't known about until 2001?

 

[Bunntamas]

Bunntamas, we have our opinions and suspicions as to why the Maltese staff didn't want to appear at Zeist, and you have yours. Fair enough.

Thank you.

What do you think of the incompetence at Frankfurt with the German authorities failing to secure the records of that airport, taking 9 months before they passed on the computer printout, and the breach of security at the Pan Am gate at Heathrow on the 21st that wasn't known about until 2001?

Assuming you're asking for my opinion, and not a CT, my opinion is that I think that security and management at both Frankfurt and Heathrow were dreadful, and yes, incompetent. Pan Am had been cited on numerous occasions by the FAA prior to the Lockerbie bombing, but no follow-up, or ramifications e.g. fines, which would have actually had an impact, and possibly created more strict security and management. The fact that systems were set up to purge records in such a small amount of time stymies me. However, even though there were terrorist activities occurring throughout the world, the focus was more on hijackings, as opposed to blowing up a civilian airliner. Remember, this was the late 80's. Bomb detection / scanning and sniffer dogs were in their infancy. Hard and painful lessons had to be learned in order to get where we are today on airline / airport security and records.

That said, I'll bounce a question back to you, regarding Bogomira Erac. Regardless of how long it took, why do you think she would risk her job, reputation, and personal security (this was, after all a terrorist act) and finally come forward with the baggage printout?

 

[Bunntamas]

and the breach of security at the Pan Am gate at Heathrow on the 21st that wasn't known about until 2001?

I assume you're referring to the padlock at Heathrow? I'm not sure why it didn't come up until 2001. I'm not sure it didn't come up prior, however, it was obviously not introduced at trial. However, it was introduced at the appeal, which of course failed.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I just swore off this futile discussion, but I see some specifics discussed, and I think we can all agree that's a good thing. Not holding my breath or anything, but...

Buncrana and Bunntamas having an exchange. I suddenly wish my name was Buntata, I feel like such a potato head after the earlier insults. But if I may stick my potato head back in, Buncrana asked this:

What do you think of the incompetence at Frankfurt with the German authorities failing to secure the records of that airport, taking 9 months before they passed on the computer printout, and the breach of security at the Pan Am gate at Heathrow on the 21st that wasn't known about until 2001?

To be fair, the further delay was 6.5 months, according to the police reports from 2 February. Total delay from the complete failure of the police to secure anything relevant, to Bogomira's fortuitous locker-paper, to the same in Scottish hands was almost exactly nine months.

Assuming you're asking for my opinion, and not a CT, my opinion is that I think that security and management at both Frankfurt and Heathrow were dreadful, and yes, incompetent. Pan Am had been cited on numerous occasions by the FAA prior to the Lockerbie bombing, but no follow-up, or ramifications e.g. fines, which would have actually had an impact, and possibly created more strict security and management. The fact that systems were set up to purge records in such a small amount of time stymies me. However, even though there were terrorist activities occurring throughout the world, the focus was more on hijackings, as opposed to blowing up a civilian airliner. Remember, this was the late 80's. Bomb detection / scanning and sniffer dogs were in their infancy. Hard and painful lessons had to be learned in order to get where we are today on airline / airport security and records.

I have to note that only explains the alleged failure on the airport end, not the police end. Why is it perfectly understandable that German authorities, the BundesKriminal Amt (BKA) failed to secure a copy for investigative purposes prior to it being deleted? News reports and common sense have them investigating at the airport by Christmas eve at the latest. And there's exactly one thing they should have been looking for - the data for what wen onto PA 103A. Perhaps, if possible, the whole data tape so they could compare and narrow things down between flights.

Did they really just walk away empty-handed? The airport deleted its files within how many days? Officially everyone agrees it was usually seven days (or so). Why is it summarily glossed over in most accounts as a minor hitch solved by the locker-paper? What was the official explanation and the official protest over this amazing lapse? If I believed that, I'd suspect the airport people of trying to cover up what they either saw or feared in the data. That would be criminal. Maybe they were compelled to get in on the Malta cover-up on Libya's behalf...

I've got my own thoughts and opinions on it, but I admit I've got more questions than answers here.

That said, I'll bounce a question back to you, regarding Bogomira Erac. Regardless of how long it took, why do you think she would risk her job, reputation, and personal security (this was, after all a terrorist act) and finally come forward with the baggage printout?

I know that wasn't to me, but I presume you mean she'd face a risk of trouble for taking an unauthorized copy of official data? That's a point I hadn't considered. Officially, she was asked for anything relevant to the feeder flight, since police had gotten nothing and the system's live data had been blanked out and replaced. This was late January. She said all the paper files normally kept had been purged prematurely as well. The backup tape the system's designer swears was used either wasn't made or deleted, or something.

None of this is explained very well anywhere I've seen. It's just a simple narrative where - somehow - this one lucky copy with nothing to compare and verify it by became the sole and only evidence of an unaccompanied bag from Malta. It's like a Disney movie where the scrappy outcast becomes the unlikely hero. It's inspirational. It's got a human interest angle that was played up from day one. Bogomira Erac, poster girl for workplace dilligence.

Honestly, if you want my opinion and conspiracy theory, I think the thing is fake. I think she came forward and vouched for it because she was assured it was for the nation's and the world's best interests, and was offered millions, but not conviction-based and outside the rewards for justice thing. This wasn't insider evidence, it was her job, so the payment would be secret. Some secret channel of the State Dept. perhaps. I suspect it was tailor made to implicate KM 180 despite it having nothing to do with anything. And this in turn was to point at Megrahi, who had been pre-selected as the best lever to pin this whole thing on Libya.

Then all parties agreed to disappear the stuff that would contradict it, hence Frankfurt airport's missing computer records. It explains everything, and is only as unlikely as it actually is.

That sounds extreme to you I'm sure, but it's my interpretation. And really it all comes down to small point - why is that one scrap of paper the only evidence we have?

 

[Caustic Logic]

In fact, going over it again, it's clear Bunntamas doesn't even really offer much about the airport itself, just failures of Pan Am. I think we agree their security at Heathrow was abysmal, and at Frankfurt. But they didn't run the central baggage data system that recorded all bag movements in the conveyor belt system. This was the unfortunately (in American English) abbreviated FAG.

Bunntamas, or anyone else: I'd be willing to hear any explanation for how police failed to get hold of that on their own within the month of December. Was it a police or an airport failure, and of what nature? All source I've read start right before Bogomira produces her copy, as if no one looked at all until late January. Maybe you've got something to fill that in?

 

[Buncrana]

That said, I'll bounce a question back to you, regarding Bogomira Erac. Regardless of how long it took, why do you think she would risk her job, reputation, and personal security (this was, after all a terrorist act) and finally come forward with the baggage printout?

First, I don't really see it at all as a risk to her in terms of her employment - she was, by any rational interpretation, actually getting the German police out of a rather deep hole through their apparent failure to secure the records. I don't think she did something outwith her authority by taking the printout. It was however, not usual for this to be done, although on this occasion it was a god-send for the German's. If she hadn't saved that copy, we would have been left with no evidence that a bag had been introduced at Malta, and no evidence whatsoever to show any baggage movements at Frankfurt on the 21st, meaning there would be absolutely zilch for anyone to investigate and a prosecution well nigh impossible.


She didn't "finally come forward", on returning from her holiday over Christmas and New Year, she quite readily volunteered the printout to her manager who then passed it onto the BKA. It was the BKA who were reluctant to produce this document to the investigators. Mrs Erac handed her printout over in late January '89, and no one was made aware of the printout until the BKA suddenly produced it in Aug '89, nine months after 103 and eight months after they had obtained it. Why?


Second, surely any workers reputation would be enhanced by exhibiting such attentive and conscientious awareness in her employment, realising that 103 had been fed directly by 103A from Frankfurt, thus securing a record that no one else throughout Frankfurt's security personnel and the German police had even given a passing thought to.


Third, on taking the printout and it then being passed to the BKA, she would still have had no inclination of the impact and significance the printout would latterly have. It detailed baggage that was destined for 103A, but not whether the bag was accompanied or not. So, on her producing the printout for the BKA, she wouldn't have foresight that she actually had a document directly linked to a terror plot.


Remember, this was at a time when Frankfurt and the German police were on high alert (elevated to severe I think we would say these days) for precisely this kind of attack, due to the warnings issued against that airport and US flag carriers flying out and the arrest of the PLFP cell 8 weeks before.


Further, we know from testimony at Zeist by commissioner Hans Juergen Fuhl that the German police were actually awaiting a particular passenger returning to Frankfurt who had travelled on 103A to Heathrow, not joining 103, and was due to return on Christmas Day.


So here we have the German police at Frankfurt, aware of passengers who flew on 103A, to such an extent that they are anxious enough to interview this passenger four days after Lockerbie, waiting for him at the airport no-less, but at the same time we're to simply accept that no records of the airport were secured by these same officers or anyone else at Frankfurt?

Does that sound plausible to you?

 

[Buncrana]

I assume you're referring to the padlock at Heathrow? I'm not sure why it didn't come up until 2001. I'm not sure it didn't come up prior, however, it was obviously not introduced at trial. However, it was introduced at the appeal, which of course failed.

Well yes, it wasn't seen as evidential during the appeal because, as you rightly point out, it was readily accepted by everyone already that Heathrow's security was woeful at best, negligent and complicit at worst. Thus, the break-in, whether known about or not, was inconsequential to this.


Despite it's apparent triviality at the first appeal, does it not concern you that this fact which taken together with Mr Bedford's early statement to the UK police about the 2 unidentified suitcases he observed in the container that housed the explosion, one suitcase at least was described by him as brown/bronze samsonite suitcase? Because if the samsonite that Mr Bedford's saw didn't contain the bomb, as the judges asserted at Zeist, then what became of this suitcase?


Bunntamas, I'll level with you, I may not agree with them but I understand how your suspicions are formed about the Maltese staff, but surely you can also appreciate why we have well founded suspicions and cynicism around the systematic discrepancies and incompetence that are all to evident at Heathrow and Frankfurt?

 

[Rolfe]

Okay. So what? You've come up with quite a lot of theories as well in postings past, and I've not jumped all over you for doing so, like you and others do to me. I've stated my opinions. So have you. I've said before that I'm not trying to create a CT. It's just my opinon.

I've tried to give my reasons for the theories and opinions I've posted. If my reasons are irrational, then by all means "jump all over them". That's what debate is all about. It's OK to trash a bad argument - I offer any of my arguments to you for suitable trashing.

I still haven't found the source for the reasons for the Maltese baggage handlers boycotting Zeist, but I'll keep looking. The people I've asked have confirmed that this is also their understanding of the reasons, though they haven't yet found a hard-copy reference. One person involved with the trial said "From my own recollection speaking to one of them the Crown went out of their way to piss them off and they felt they were being treated as suspects."

I hadn't heard the part about the Crown going out of its way to piss off the baggage handlers. I wonder why the prosecution didn't want them to give evidence, hmmmm?

It is quite obvious, however, that the baggage handlers were being treated as suspects, whichever way you slice it. If this was all an elaborate charade, I completely fail to see why they couldn't just show up at Zeist and continue with the party line. I do, however, find it entirely understandable that a group of people who have told the truth and been helpful to the enquiry should finally balk at the idea of showing up to a court hearing where they knew they were not going to be believed and were going to be accused of being commplicit in 270 murders.

Bunntamas, although you aren't creating it (Vincent Cannistraro has that honour), this is a CT. The prosecution don't have a shred of evidence to suggest that the baggage handlers were lying. They haven't produced the slightest suggestion of how the bomb might have been introduced. It's perfectly clear they're completely at sea on this, despite the exhaustive efforts to find something. They're nevertheless postulating a wide-ranging and complex plot which simply beggars belief. Yes, it's a conspiracy theory.

What is this compelling evidence that the bomb must have been smuggled on board KM180? Apparently, because Megrahi was catching his flight for Tripoli that morning. Honestly, that's it! And what is the compelling evidence that Megrahi must have been mixed up in the bombing? Because he was at the airport when the bomb was smuggled onto KM180!

It's self-referencing circular logic.

Assuming you're asking for my opinion, and not a CT, my opinion is that I think that security and management at both Frankfurt and Heathrow were dreadful, and yes, incompetent. Pan Am had been cited on numerous occasions by the FAA prior to the Lockerbie bombing, but no follow-up, or ramifications e.g. fines, which would have actually had an impact, and possibly created more strict security and management.

Pan Am has been widely criticised. The fact is, if the bomb went on board at Heathrow, they were just as cuplable as if it went through the Frankfurt interline system. The FAI decided (apparently on instructions) that Kurt Maier had missed the bomb on x-ray. However, if he didn't, then Kamboj missed it. There's no difference.

The fact that systems were set up to purge records in such a small amount of time stymies me.

Bunntamas, they weren't. Even on the evidence produced at Zeist, the records stayed live in the system for a week. The BKA were well aware that a flight "originating at Frankfurt" had crashed in suspicious circumstances long before that. There are numerous contemparary press reports of the BKA investigating the incident in the first week.

And then again, what about the airport's own security staff? They also should have recognised the need to retain records. Dammit, even if the crash had been a tragic accident, there would have been a need to retain records to account for missing luggage that might have been on the plane - rush tag baggage and things like that.

Bogomira Erac, at Zeist, described the system. She makes reference to the possibility of backing up the daily files to floppy disc. She also refers to paper printouts that came routinely from the teletype machines, but were usually thrown away at the end of the day. Paper doesn't spontaneously combust in a waste basket though. And yet apparently nobody even looked through the bins.

The designer of the Frankfurt computer system, who wasn't called at Zeist, has said that tape backups were routinely taken to aid in the search for mis-routed luggage, and would be kept for much longer than a week. He has also said that the system wasn't purged as quickly as a week anyway (that could be the same statement twice.) He was due to give evidence to the second appeal.

And it wasn't just the computer records that were missing. The paper loading records for PA103A vanished from the file. The records of the unloading of KM180 also disappeared.

The Frankfurt police refused to co-operate with the investigation for the first eight months. They repeatedly rebuffed requests from the Scottish police for the relevant baggage records, saying they didn't exist, or had been destroyed. They continued taking that line even after they had Bogomira's printout.

Don't you think there's maybe just a wee bit of a suspicion that something was being covered up at Frankfurt? I would respectfully submit that the evidence for that is a lot more substantial than the evidence for anything untoward happening at Luqa.

However, even though there were terrorist activities occurring throughout the world, the focus was more on hijackings, as opposed to blowing up a civilian airliner. Remember, this was the late 80's. Bomb detection / scanning and sniffer dogs were in their infancy. Hard and painful lessons had to be learned in order to get where we are today on airline / airport security and records.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. Even a cursory search will reveal many airline bombing incidents, including some carried out by Ahmed Jibril and his appalling associates. The ploy of smuggling bombs on as checked-in luggage then simply failing to board had worked too often, hence all the bag-counting and reconciliation procedures at Luqa, and the x-ray machines at the bigger airports. Tricking an innocent passenger into carrying a bomb was also well-tried.

The Helsinki warning was about precisely that. An innocent Finnish girl-friend was going to be carrying a bomb. The BKA themselves caught Khreesat, Dalkamoni et al. with these barometric devices, quite clearly intended specifically to blow up aircraft. As a result a specific warning was issued for operatives to look out for Toshiba radio-cassettes in luggage. Kurt Maier had that warning and said he was alert for such a thing. (Kamboj said he'd mever heard of it, and indeed the document was found to be still sitting in the Department of Transport waiting for a better photo.)

What wasn't anticipated in the 1980s was the suicide bomber. The mad islamist jihadist hadn't emerged. The terrorists were assumed to be interested in not actually dying. What changed in 2001 was that even passengers who actually boarded the plane had to be suspected of possibly intending to destroy it.

That said, I'll bounce a question back to you, regarding Bogomira Erac. Regardless of how long it took, why do you think she would risk her job, reputation, and personal security (this was, after all a terrorist act) and finally come forward with the baggage printout?

Why would she be taking any risk at all? Her story seems perfectly straightforward, apart from the astounding lack of any description of an investigation in her department in the days before she went on holiday.

She first heard of the crash while driving home from work, and at that time she believed the plane was a direct Frankfurt to JFK flight, because that was how it was being reported. The next day, she says everybody was talking about it, but says nothing about any security investigation either that day or before she left for her regular New Year holiday in Slovenia (which was at that time behing the Iron Curtain, by the way - she had emigrated to the west in the 1960s but still went home every year).

In the evening, when her shift was quieter, she decided to run off a printout of PA103 (not identified by any A on her system) to see if she could see anything unusual. She saw nothing apart from wondering why there were so few suitcases (not realising at that point that it wasn't actually a transatlantic flight), but instead of binning the printout, she decided to keep it as a souvenir - her little connection to the Big News Story.

Her return from holiday (she seems to have been away for two weeks) seems to have coincided with some investigation at the airport. Michael Jones says, "I went to Frankfurt airport on the 23rd of January 1989 to look for the documents in relation to the preparation of Flight 103 from Frankfurt to London, in particular the cargo and baggage loading plan, who was responsible for loading the plane and what their duties were. But these documents were missing from the daily file." This is exactly the time Bogomira says she remembered her printout, and I wonder if it was Jones's presence that reminded her she had it, and/or caused her to realise it might be important as everything else had vanished.

So she told her supervisor, who seems to me to be taking the fact that all the records had vanished extraordinarily calmly, and he said, well, better give that to the police.

How was she risking job, reputation, whatever, in that narrative? In fact, she ended up getting undeserved praise, from commentators who report that she was "quick-thinking" and had delberately saved the record as evidence.

I assume you're referring to the padlock at Heathrow? I'm not sure why it didn't come up until 2001. I'm not sure it didn't come up prior, however, it was obviously not introduced at trial. However, it was introduced at the appeal, which of course failed.

It didn't come up because it was deliberately concealed from the defence. It's that simple. That's why it wasn't introduced at the trial. The security guard who reported it at the time was baffled by why he'd never been interviewed or called as a witness at Zeist, and went to the authorities about it after the verdict was announced.

You know what? We know the first appeal failed. Did you think we were discussing all this in the belief that Megrahi has been a free man since 2002? I find it odd that you have to keep repeating this self-evident fact.

The reason for dismissing the evidence about the break-in is really clever. (Well, ignoring what Hans Kochler says about Raymond Manly being on some sort of medication that made him a poor witness.) The appeal judges said, but it was already acknowledged that Heathrow security leaked like a sieve. It was no part of the prosecution's case that it was impossible to smuggle a bomb into Heathrow airside. In fact, we know there were thousands of airside passes issued, and nobody knew where most of them were. Anybody could have walked right in there any time they'd wanted to. The trial judges knew that. So we really don't think that knowing there had been a break-in would have altered their decision. Why would the terrorists have wanted to cut a padlock at midnight anyway, when they could just have walked in with a pass?

You have to go to the best law schools to come up with that one.

Bunntamas, I hope this doesn't come over as snippy, I really don't mean it that way. I do want to discuss the evidence, and if you're willing to do that, and it's not making you depressed, then I hope you'll give some of what we've posted some serious thought.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

One person involved with the trial said "From my own recollection speaking to one of them the Crown went out of their way to piss them off and they felt they were being treated as suspects."

Interesting. Obviously multiple sources, primary and otherwise, eventually ... but this makes sense. Just instinctively I wonder if the answer why they didn't show up was, ultimately, the crown didn't want them there. Live sworn testimony, perhaps renewed conviction and quintuple-checked facts, would have added some luster off the Air Malta end of things. Keeping that out, relying on stale records of past statements, etc. might help the Crown, as these people would be testifying against that staler yet printout from the locker.

Secondly, the effect of refusing to show up can, it's now proven, be seen as suspicious. I can't imagine the prosecution really believed the judges would be swayed much by that, but it might be worth a try as a bonus. And it has proven useful after the fact in the popular motifs of this epic cognitive dissonance.

Intentionally provoking just such behavior could explain why the Maltese wound up shooting themselves in the foot here - but considering how the Germans seemed to acquiesce to London's insistence on not hosting the bomb intro, how Libya has moved against the defendants' interests, and so on, it's also possible someone in Malta helped convince the baggage people they were too powerful, and it was best for them to sit it out. The people at the top would know this case just had to go forward, and people falling on their swords shouldn't be surprising.

I suppose that's a little out there, but FWIW.