US authorities framed al-Megrahi for the destruction of Pan Am 103

[Hallo Alfie]

So who did it?

 

[Rolfe]

No real idea. The smart money says it was indeed a PFLP-GC operation, but it wasn't done the way it was originally thought to have been done. To add to the coincidences in the case, almost everybody who has been fingered has been called Abu something....

If you strip away the wilder CTs, the suspicion remains that the bombing was inadvertently facilitated by some covert CIA or DIA operation that was going on, probably involving Frankfurt airport (although the most compelling evidence for the place of insertion of the bomb is actually Heathrow), and that this led to a cover-up in which a trail leading to Libya was laid to get the investigators off the real scent. I wonder, even, it it was an operation aimed at preventing a bombing of this nature that spectacularly backfired and ended up facilitating it. The fact that a real live Libyan subsequently turned out to have been in the wrong place at the wrong time to get the crime pinned on him may well have been merely fortuitous.

That's speculation and kite-flying, of course. The only part that's certain is that Megrahi was framed in 1991, principally by the CIA and the Department of Justice blackmailing and bribing Giaka to invent evidence to implicate him in the crime, and that they did this because Megrahi was a plausible suspect and they didn't have another plausible suspect.

The rest - who knows?

Rolfe.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Interesting.
It would seem to me, that for this to really get legs worldwide (not just JREF), alternative perpetrator(s) would be required to be found and a prima facie case established.

If there really has been a miscarriage of justice, it has - in part - been addressed by his release.
I'm no legist but don't they need additional compelling evidence first, before they re-open a case and spend squillions more of public money?

What will ultimately be achieved even if he is cleared? Has, and/or how, is the public best served?

 

[Rolfe]

I wouldn't say that within hearing distance of any of the victims' family members mentioned above.

Millions were spent on a 4-year investigation of the case by the SCCRC, between 2003 and 2007. In 2007 they reported that there were six separate grounds in which a miscariage of justice may have occurred. (Though they only told us about four of them, all relating to the Gauci identification.) The case was referred back to court for the appeal to go ahead, in mid 2007.

During 2008 the authorities spent a pile more money obstructing the attempts of the defence to have a certain document released in evidence. This, and other delaying tactics, prevented the appeal being heard in 2008 as had been expected. In September 2008, Megrahi was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer.

The appeal got to court in April of 2009, and the first hearings occurred. The defence case was going very well indeed, relating to the purchase of the clothes. However, despite the appellant being terminally ill, the case was scheduled to be heard in three sessions - the second beginning November 2009 amd the third, I believe, February this year.

In July/August 2009, during a recess in the appeal hearings, Megrahi was assessed as possibly/probably having only three months or so left to live. Which would just about have taken him up to the start of the appeal hearings being reconvened in November, but nowhere near the conclusion of the proceedings.

This is where it gets murky, but it appears that he was pressurised to drop the appeal as a quid pro quo to get the compassionate release. Which he did, leaving a lot of people who wanted to know the truth extremely upset.

There has been an absolutely stonking amount of money spent on this so far, only for it to be cut short just before we would have got an outcome. However, although the appeal was dropped, the SCCRC report detailing the reasons for their belief that it "may have been" (read, bloody well was!) a miscarriage of justice, still remains.

Rolfe.

 

[Chaos]

Dunno. Is anybody reading? The thread isn't getting many views either. A.A.Alfie says nobody cares.

I think the case that al-Megrahi was framed in a plain vanilla manner because he was a plausible suspect in the wrong place at the wrong time is unanswerable, frankly. And that the subsequent conviction was politically-motivated, and the present cover-up may be interpreted merely as a cover-up of a deeply embarrassing miscarriage of justice.

I therefore find it incomprehensible that "nobody cares" about this, in the light of the constant headlines going on right now, monstering an innocent man because he was granted the privilege of going home to die of cancer.

However, this is going somewhere. The legend of Lockerbie includes a tuppence coloured conspiracy theory, whereby the US authorities sought from the beginning to avoid bringing the probable real culprits to justice, and to lay the blame on Libya instead. Only two years later did this crystallise out into blaming a particular Libyan.

The usual reason given for this (the Gulf War) doesn't wash. Did it happen at all, or has the plain vanilla conspiracy merely been over-interpreted? Was the main intent to blame Libya - or rather, to avoid investigating the real culprits, and Libya was just a handy diversion?

Was the CIA actually culpable in some way for the Lockerbie disaster, a way which would become public if the true culprits were brought to book, and which would be far too embarrassing ever to allow to be discovered? Is this why evidence pointing to Libya in general was planted in the early months of the enquiry, evidence which (perhaps fortuitously) eventually led to the fingering and conviction of an innocent Libyan for the crime?

I actually don't know. But I don't discount it on principle. So let's see whether anyone is interested if and when the progression of the thread gets that far.

Rolfe.

Don´t attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, wrongheadedness and the desire to cover one´s ass after making a mistake.

Assuming the CIA et al did contribute to sentencing an innocent man, I see several possibilities, in descending order of likelhood:

1) They were convinced, not beyond reasonable doubt but beyond the doubt of someone predisposed not to like the suspect and the country he is from, that he was indeed the culprit and that, since he had covered his tracks so well, they had to doctor the evidence in order to take a dangerous individual out of circulation. Let´s call this the "stupidity, bias and (sorta) good intentions" version.

2) They really had no clue who did it, thought the al-Megrahi was a bad guy anyway - you know, Lybian, and all that - so why not frame him? Taking an evil Lybian bad guy out of circulation on one hand, and presenting an image of competence and being hard on blowing up airplanes to the public on the other, that´s killing two flies with one stone. Let´s call it the "incompetence, dishonesty and (sorta) good intentions" version.

3) They knew who did it, but for some reason exposing the real culprit would uncover some failure or something on their part which they did not want exposed, so they decided to blame al-Megrahi to deflect investigations from the real culprit, and for the reasons in (2)

4) They had done it themselves and framed al-Megrahi for it, both to deflect the investigation from themselves and for the reasons presented in (2). This is the MIHOP of Lockerbie theories.

5) They knew who did it, and it was someone they didn´t want to see blamed for it in public; since the CIA probably wouldn´t have had a problem seeing the IRA, Palestinians or KGB blamed, this more or less leaves only the Mossad or the British, and either only if they were trying to pull off version (4)

Assuming al-Megrahi was indeed blamed by the CIA (I am covering my own skeptical ass with that caveat, not questioning your arguments, Rolfe), then I think (1) and (2) are the most likely; (1) is somewhat more likely, I think, but I would not want to have to definitely pick one version. (3) is unlikely but possible, in my opinion, and (4) and (5) are pure CT territory - on par with MIHOP and LIHOP for 9/11.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Nice breakdown, Chaos. Myself I'm really no #3, as I think most sceptics are. It deservesmore detailed consideration, but I've got to jet.

ETA: (Post #94) brings us back to the question of what could be done. The best way to clear Megrahi's name would have been in the courts, with the appeal. But for *mysterious reasons of his own* Megrahi surrendered that a week before being released.

The better situated people are Dr. Swire,Mr.Berkley, et al. And they have been looking into reviving that appeal in "the bomber's" name, or having a third appeal ordered, or whatever can be done. I don't know how these things work, and I'm not sure those guys are really much ahead, but they are trying.

I suspect the Scottish justiciary will not fully cooperate with this. Having the verdict overturned for such gross violations of justice might be ... embarrassing. I suspect as an unrelated American citizen, I'd have worse luck yet.

And as far as the real culprits go, it's about as Rolfe says, and the same party suspected by everyone in the early months, before the Libyan clues started appearing out of nowhere. It was pretty obvious, given the scale of grievance the Iranians were pursuing. If this isn't familiar to you, the abundance of alternate perp clues it's actually one of the strong points of this "CT." Here's aprovocative thread I started to discuss the issue of motive re: PFLP-GC vs. Libya. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165352
And a blog post: http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/03/iran-air-655-casus-belli-behind.html

And besides the powerful motive and semi-established monry trail from Iran to these guys, their technology (timers that detonate 30-60 minutes after takeoff, depending) matches the detonation on 103 if the bomb went on at Heathrow (38 minutes after takeoff). There are other clues, but those are the biggies.

 

[Rolfe]

Neat summary.

Don´t attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity, wrongheadedness and the desire to cover one´s ass after making a mistake.

Oh, there's a helluva lot of that going on. So much of it that it's hard to tell if there's anything more.

Assuming the CIA et al did contribute to sentencing an innocent man,

I can't see any way they weren't, looking at what happened with Giaka. The case would never have come to court without the US Department of Justice assuring the Scottish prosecutors that Giaka was a credible witness who would implicate the accused. Except they blatantly blackmailed Giaka into making it up. Without that, the remaining evidence woudn't have supported the indictment. The fact that it subsequently supported a conviction is a whole other ball game, I agree.

1) They were convinced, not beyond reasonable doubt but beyond the doubt of someone predisposed not to like the suspect and the country he is from, that he was indeed the culprit and that, since he had covered his tracks so well, they had to doctor the evidence in order to take a dangerous individual out of circulation. Let´s call this the "stupidity, bias and (sorta) good intentions" version.

I think that actually describes the position of quite a number of people involved in the investigation, probably the majority. Sadly, it's a mind-set found in police forces the world over. It seems very difficult to believe that absolutely nobody sat up and realised that the Malta baggage records actually proved he couldn't have done it, though.

2) They really had no clue who did it, thought the al-Megrahi was a bad guy anyway - you know, Lybian, and all that - so why not frame him? Taking an evil Lybian bad guy out of circulation on one hand, and presenting an image of competence and being hard on blowing up airplanes to the public on the other, that´s killing two flies with one stone. Let´s call it the "incompetence, dishonesty and (sorta) good intentions" version.

That quite possibly accounts for the rest of it - if you add in the fact that not getting anyone for this appalling atrocity would not be a great political or career move. He's in the right place at the right time, he's undercover as well, and he's a Libyan security officer. What's not to like? He'll do nicely.

3) They knew who did it, but for some reason exposing the real culprit would uncover some failure or something on their part which they did not want exposed, so they decided to blame al-Megrahi to deflect investigations from the real culprit, and for the reasons in (2)

I think that's the essence of the main Lockerbie CT. It's actually stated in so many words by Paul Foot, when he's discussing the article Jack Anderson wrote in January 1990 which first reported the alleged Bush/Thatcher telephone call agreeing to back off on getting too close to the PFLP-GC.

But there was something else about Anderson’s speculation which didn’t quite ring true: the notion that George Bush and Margaret Thatcher would agree a “low key” approach solely because they could not do anything to avenge themselves and the Lockerbie relatives on Iran. Just as likely was the fear in both their minds that the Lockerbie bombing had exposed a gaping hole in their intelligence services which would, if the matter was fully aired, be proved to have been incompetent to stop a murderous plot they knew about. At any rate, the Anderson article provided some explanation for the curious official silence of both heads of state after March 1989.

It's interesting to note that this article and others were written before the timer fragment was identified and deemed to point to Libya (June 1990), never mind the first investigations of Megrahi as a suspect (February 1991).

However, you're going right on to a MIHOP, when there is a sodding great LIHOP being promulgated by a lot of people from Tam Dalyell down. It goes like this.

When IA655 was shot down in July 1988, Iran believed it was done on purpose. The Iranian government vowed to take revenge, by downing not just one but many US airliners. I've heard ten mentioned. Somehow, and I've never heard this explained in detail, a bargain was struck. Iran would be allowed to take out one airliner, no hindrance and no retaliation, if it would stop at that. Dalyell calls it a "Faustian bargain".

Just how this story continues depends on which CTist you're listening to. Prominent people were pulled off the flight and people who were "expendable" politically were left on (Charles McKee and Bernt Carlsson are the commonest candidates for that category). There's no real evidence for this, but that's how it goes.

Iran paid the PFLP-GC to do the job. And then, after it happened, the CIA exerted itself to make sure they weren't tracked down. In fact, the CIA actually got Khreesat who made the bomb released from German custody in October 1988 (this appears to be true, actually).

I think it's an appalling idea. I'd have to be dragged there by extraordinarily compelling evidence, which does not appear to exist.

4) They had done it themselves and framed al-Megrahi for it, both to deflect the investigation from themselves and for the reasons presented in (2). This is the MIHOP of Lockerbie theories.

This is just an extension of the LIHOP - it's been suggested by at least one CTer that the CIA was so concerned to save the other hypothetical 9 flights that it actually assisted in the boombing itself. Even more appalling, and completely evidence-free.

5) They knew who did it, and it was someone they didn´t want to see blamed for it in public; since the CIA probably wouldn´t have had a problem seeing the IRA, Palestinians or KGB blamed, this more or less leaves only the Mossad or the British, and either only if they were trying to pull off version (4)

I have seen the occasional, well of course it was Mossad. It seems just to be a knee-jerk reaction by the usual antisemitic suspects.

Assuming al-Megrahi was indeed blamed by the CIA (I am covering my own skeptical ass with that caveat, not questioning your arguments, Rolfe), then I think (1) and (2) are the most likely; (1) is somewhat more likely, I think, but I would not want to have to definitely pick one version. (3) is unlikely but possible, in my opinion, and (4) and (5) are pure CT territory - on par with MIHOP and LIHOP for 9/11.

I think a combination of 1 and 2 are essentially certain, depending on who you're talking to. The interesting question is whether, underneath all that, 3 was happening all along.

Bear in mind that something a bit freaky was going on in Frankfurt. Which was in the US sector of the FRD at the time. The Frankfurt cops busted the local cell of the PFLP-GC in October 1988, catching a number of them red-handed with a device startlingly similar to the one that downed Maid of the Seas. (There are MIHOPers who say it was the same device.) About 17 arrests were made, but all but 2 were released within 48 hours for "lack of evidence".

Marwan Khreesat, the actual bomb-maker, was actually a CIA asset, who was supposed to be making dud bombs, as a double agent. These bombs were not dud however. Khreesat (according to one report) made one phone call to his CIA handlers in Frankfurt and was out of there.

Then when the disaster happened, all the baggage records at Frankfurt airport vanished into a black hole. This was never adequately explained. The details have been gone over already. The Scottish police requested the records several times, but were fobbed off with "the records don't exist any more" and "the records have been destroyed". The only thing more insane than this is how calmly everyone seems to take it. The two police forces were barely on speaking terms though.

Then in April 1989, the PFLP-GC were busted again and (I think) five more devices seized. Caustic Logic is better on the details of this than I am. One device apparently never surfaced, and it's suspected that's the one that blew up over Lockerbie. These were the "dud" devices Khreesat the Jordanian/CIA asset was supposed to be making. One of them exploded and killed a German bomb disposal expert. So the Germans destroyed the rest, on safety grounds. Thus that evidence wasn't available to the Lockerbie investigation.

There have been persistent stories about the US drugs enforcement people allowing controlled consignments of heroin to enter the USA via Frankfurt, in order to track the material at the other end and bust the drug dealers. There seems to be some truth in this, they just say they weren't doing it in December 1988. There are also stories about a "drugs for hostages" deal, similar to the "arms for hostages" deal. Pan Am 103 is supposed to be one of the flights used in these operations.

I have little idea about any of this except that there really does seem to have been weird stuff going on at Frankfurt. Some early investigators proposed the theory that the bomb got on board because the terrorists managed to switch one of the drugs suitcases, which were arranged to circumvent the x-ray, for the bomb. These are the people who claim that reprisals were taken against them by the US authorities (Juval Aviv, Lester Coleman, James Shaughnessy and Allan Francovich). The people propounding the fabricated MST-13 fragment and all that stuff seem to proceed unmolested.

So I think there might have been something going on at Frankfurt, involving the PFLP-GC, that the CIA really, really didn't want to get out, to the point of diverting attention from that aspect. Giving the LIHOPers a moment's credulity, it might even be that some covert negotiations were going on in respect of trading one flight for many, with the intention of getting close enough to the plot to stop the whole thing, and it went spectacularly wrong.

And of course that could all be total fantasy-land. It's possible that the PFLP-GC simply pulled it off by a means that was never discovered (aided by redirecting the investigation to Malta by using these Maltese clothes, and the fact that the investigators really, really didn't want that bomb to have gone on at Heathrow, on British soil). Then, following up the Malta red herring, the investigation noticed Megrahi looking suspicious, got suspicions, and simply decided to fit him up anyway.

But I'd like to know, one way or the other. There are an awful lot of weird things about this case quite separate from the framing of Megrahi. The timer fragment, the radio manual, the Frankfurt baggage records, the Erac printout, and the insider stories going right back to 1989 that there was a very high-up order to back off on the PFLP-GC.

So, I speculate, and I look at the evidence, and I speculate some more.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

And as far as the real culprits go, it's about as Rolfe says, and the same party suspected by everyone in the early months, before the Libyan clues started appearing out of nowhere. It was pretty obvious, given the scale of grievance the Iranians were pursuing. If this isn't familiar to you, the abundance of alternate perp clues it's actually one of the strong points of this "CT." Here's aprovocative thread I started to discuss the issue of motive re: PFLP-GC vs. Libya. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165352
And a blog post: http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/03/iran-air-655-casus-belli-behind.html.

I'd forgotten about that thread you just linked to. There is a post there by Ambrosia which is very very interesting.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5539439

I wish he'd come back - I hope it wasn't something I said. He was a great asset and had so much to contribute. But he hasn't posted since April, and even then he was just playing Battlestar Galactica.

Read the post, anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'd forgotten about that thread you just linked to. There is a post there by Ambrosia which is very very interesting.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5539439

I wish he'd come back - I hope it wasn't something I said. He was a great asset and had so much to contribute. But he hasn't posted since April, and even then he was just playing Battlestar Galactica.

Read the post, anyway.

Rolfe.

I do recall we had a fairly sharp disagreement there over tone and approach. Re-reading it now, I get the same impression. It's not that I'm wrong, just undisciplined and too right-brained, etc. Yeah,I know that. It would have taken hours to carefully cite and explain the context of each of these things I could also just rattle off with some flair in 1/10 the time. So sue me.

And as far as the Libya and Iran angle, Jibril himself actually in Libya I haven't double-checked, but Ambrosia sounds pretty sure, so ... this makes it seem more plausible, but a whole new CT no one has proposed. It wouldn't do much to explain the "case" against Megrahi I don't think. And I'm not sure how it would fit in with the London clues. Did Gaddafi just facilitate the transfer of Jibril's bomb from Germany, perhaps via Libya, to the Iran Air people at Heathrow? Or did he really have a new bomb built for him, with easily traceable timer inside a similarly stupid radio?

So... sorry that's not the best thread due to my whatever. Point being, Iran was supposed to get that revenge, right about when Libya officially pulled off this bizarre plot of their own. I'm not buying it, not based on the "evidence" that convinced investigators.

ETA: I do feel like a jerk for not explaining things better at first, or not censoring myself better so he wouldn't have to criticize me and make me snappy and apparently chase him off. Ambrosia, sorry! If you're reading, we do miss you and your input!

 

[Caustic Logic]

I uppose I can add something of value now. It's been asked who besides Megrahi/Libya might have been responsible for the bombing, and as I said above, this is not aproblem at all. Rolfe gives a pretty good rundown of the known operation above. That was from the point of view of Tam Dalyell's "Faustian bargain" construct, which just adds an optional twist that I'd rather not get hung up on.

The main thing about this group is its apparent links to Iran revenge plans and the technology they used and its fit with the Lockerbie evidence. The latter I can come back to, but here I'll cover the group and its ops, quickly on the first half and then more detailed. All from my head except where a handy link occurs to me.

We have the USS Vincennes incident that killed 290 Iranians, and whatever one makes of it (here's what ABC/Nightline thought), there's little doubt the Iranian government was furious. There were vows of vengeance, a rain of blood, etc. Western intelligence fully expected at least some attempt to follow up on that.

There's some doubt or uncertainty about the money transactions, and I haven't studies that part closely, but it's said that (IIRC) $1 million was deposited into an account from some Iranian source (Motashemi?) some months before the Lockerbie bombing, and another $10 million just after.

The PFLP-GC is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, General Command - a notoriously brutal splinter group headed by Ahmed Jibril. Based mostly from Syria, they're well known for massacring a schoolbus full of children and also a hospital. In Feb. 1970 they had targeted airplanes from Europe to Israel, using crude altimeter bombs made by a young Jordanian named Marwan Khreesat. Both detonated just minutes after takeoff, one landing safely with no injuries, and the other crashing by a fluke (major smoke) and killed everyone.
(details - All my blog posts on Khreesat and his handiwork)

Khreesat apparently laid low for nearly two decades after that, and became (or already was?) a double agent for Jordanian intel, GID. I'm not sure if he was "CIA," even indirectly, but the GID did later vouch for him as one of theirs.He was requested by Jibril in 1985 to make five altimeter bombs using the newer materials available. He went to Syria, made these, and took them back apart, he says. It was a demo, except one Jibril kept and showed to his nephew, Khaisar Haddad aka "Abu Elias." (this is patched together from several sources and is a little unsure - dedicated thread here - starts a little rough but gets better)

Now... after they had their down payment, Jibril's babykillers set up a new operation in October 1988 in Neuss/Frankfurt West Germany. Jibril's right-hand man Hafez Dalkamouni headed it up. Khreesat was again requested. The GID told him to go, make fake bombs, report back frequently. He arrived in Germany October 13, with his wife actually. They spent a few days shopping with Dalkamouni and others before she flew home and Marwan got to work. He labored over four devices - two inside Ultrasound radios, one in a Sanyo monitor, and one in one of the radios he had used in 1985, a Toshiba BomBeat 453. Their time delays were longer than in 1970 - rather than 15 minutes they were for 30, 45, 60 minutes after the early trigger altitude.

He made them all live and deadly. The reason he gave when the FBI talked to him in Nov. 1989 was "Abu Elias." The bigwig who knew his work had come to Neuss, perhaps to inspect his work and make sure it wasn't a dud. He also apparently brought another radio bomb, already assembled but for two wires needing soldered. For some reason, Khreesat was made to do this while Dalkamouni watched. Then he took it back and "the fifth device" - a different type of Toshiba - disappeared. Abu Elias was also supposed to be an expert in airport security and working around it, for what that's worth.

The German feds BundesKriminalAmt (BKA) had been watching this whole operation. They grew nervous. Either the Jordanian GID or the German BND they liaised with failed to tell the BKA about agent Khreesat and the details he was phoning out - multiple bombs and one missing. So when they sprung on October 26, they hit three spots - two apartments, one with Khreesat's bomb stuff, and the car Dalkamouni and Khreesat were in. They were on their way to meet Abu Elias again to deliver one of the four other bombs, says Khreesat.

The BKA wound up with the BomBeat 453 that was in the car, and what's weird is that their raid of Dalkamouni's place missed the two other radio bombs and the data screen. Khreesat was making hidden IEDs and the BKA apparently left these as inoccuous. Khreesat was released along with most others, after a call to GID. He went right back to Amman. Dalkamouni and the guy responsible for the huge cache of weapons found were held for presence of evidence.

This bust, and a study of the ONE bomb recovered, plus fears of other bombs, led to the important "Toshiba Warning" of November-December 1988. Look out for radios with Semtex and an altimeter inside them. It doesn't seem to have gotten out to the rank-and-file people in time for December 21. None of the relevant people at Heathrow, who seem to have passively witnessed the bomb's introduction, were aware of this warning.

It was only after the bombing that attention turned back to those October busts. The Jordanians informed that Khreesat spoke of four or five bombs, not one. Were they all gotten? Uh... no. The BKA went back to the house in Spring 1989, or the storage unit where the stuff was moved since then anyway. They seized the Ultrasound radios but left the monitor. Somehow, one of these detonated, killing a highly experienced bomb tech and maiming another. They destroyed the other with high-pressure water. Khreesat later affirmed to FBI that he didn't booby-trap the things.

They found the monitor after this, finally taking ALL electronics. The German approach here - as reported to us - seems so strange and sloppy, I really feel like we're missing something that would give it more sense. Especially given that at this same time, December 88 to August 89 they Germans were ignoring, destroying, sitting on, or fabricating the amazing souvenir printout that would "prove" the bomb came from Malta, while publicly denying British claims it came from Frankfurt, by insisting it must have come from London. I really think we're missing a few things here.

I'm sure not all that detail was needed, but I think it's been pretty well illustrated that this workshop was running just weeks prior to the bombing. The weapons made were for killing airliners at altitude. Khreesat's own were irrelevant, except to those two bomb techs. But that fifth device (at least per Khreesat's story, which is all we have) never turned up. Unless it did. And then after "Libya's bombing" the full payment to the PFLP-GC was reportedly plunked down for some job well done, somewhere.


A.A. Alfie, I know that's a lot to absorb at once and to accept at face value, but if this were all true, is that a strong enough possibility to warrant a re-examination of the case against Megrrahi?

 

[Buncrana]

I've often read that the Answer to Lockerbie lies in Germany, most likely in some of the German based articles I browsed over many years ago when looking into the Autumn Leaves operation. While I may not wholly subscibe to this premise, as I believe the answer of how Pan Am 103 came to have a suitcase containing a bomb placed on-board lies at Heathrow, however, the answer as who was behind this and why the investigation was skewed away from the PFLP and towards Libya, may very well lie in Germany. Khreesat, to keep it short.

However, the framing of Megrahi and Libya is a curious aspect. My tuppence worth....

I think the consideration of framing Libya, and possible even Megrahi, was made very early. Whatever Bollier claims of how he came to type out that statement within a fortnight of 103's bomb, someone thought it important enough to visit Mebo during the nascent period of the investigation. The wheels, if already not in full motion, were greased and beginning to turn. Problems however, were being collected all over the hills around Lockerbie, while the publicity that the Autumn leaves operation had attracted, would provide an additional hurdle, if it was to be announced that a bomb had indeed brought down 103.

I think the FBI were quite confident that Tony was so suggestable, perhaps a bit of a simpleton, and he was very clearly unsure, perhaps not initailly in details of size, but certainly in what the buyer looked like, and the photo-fit seemed to confuse poor Tony even more by the time the interviews were in full flow. All the while, Gauci's contradictory and confused statements, even while hinting at Talb, would never be enough to persuade the investigators they had a credible witness to allow an indictment and charge. Over time, and when the time was right, that is after the toshiba, MST and B8849 had been established in their own right, would the appropriate inducement entice a more willing and amenable Gauci. Even then, although Tony was not the most sophisticated of witnesses, compared to Giaka, he must've been pretty much seen as top-notch. Of course, not only was Tony's identification not really assured, but his original recollection of the day of the purchase was even worse. Everything connected to the day of sale, pointed back towards Talb who by late 1989 was also known to have travelled to Malta in the months before Lockerbie. Late '89 was when B8849 had made it's remarkable appearance in the chain of clues, and encouraged the investigators that Malta and Gauci's buyer of the clothes was the prime suspect. The fact that the records from Malta stood up to scrutiny, with no unaccompanied bag coming from KM180, and the manner with which the Germans had seemingly withheld evidence and corporation in the investigation, they decided that the bag most likely did come via KM180. Why, again this wouldn't raise concerns within some of the investigating team, I cannot for the life me imagine. It must have. Undeterred with this unresolved issue, they ploughed on with the KM180 connection, visualizing someone the someone at Luqa that morning, perhaps an Libyan intelligence agent would be spotted boarding a morning flight leaving Luqa around the same time as KM180 left for Frankfurt.

Not immediately however, as the hunt was still on to find where the PI-995 fragment had originated from. The portion of Toshiba circuit board, AG145, had narrowed it down to any of 7 models, originally thought to be white, but now determined to be black, and with the manual recovered by Mrs Horton has provided a positive id on a model. This model is thought to be of a series predominantly ordered by Libya. Quite why the hunt was still on for a match to the red circle photo of the fragment PI995 was proving quite such a challenge after Hayes memo to Williamson is another very strange episode, when during Zeist, is was commented that the Swiss police, and Peter Fluckiger, had been to Mebo in June 1989 to see Bollier in connection with MST timers. However, that wouldn't have done for the Scots police to know about this, when they hadn't known anything about a possible timer id until June 1990 and Thurman's quick take-up, never mind September when the first got Feraday's excitable polaroid of a fragment, or even actually June the year before when the swiss had went to visit Bollier!

And, that photo.

Feraday, in a fit of sudden excitement, apparently rushes up a Polaroid of the fragment, as though no other photographs exist, and sends that to Williamson.

Q- Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI 995 and the trapped material in May 1989, Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs?
A- I would imagine that he would, yes, most definitely.
Q- And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr .Hayes?
A- It is most unlikely that they would be, no.
Q- I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs?
A- No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time, no.


Meanwhile, the trails towards Libya and Megrahi are being laid, it just seems a matter of letting Gauci waffle on, providing confusing and contradictory statements, and essentially while he did quite well on recollecting the clothing, his statements of identification are completely unreliable, which is just fine. When, finally, the MST link is made, reinforcing the Libya link, once again weakening any suggestiion by Gauci that Talb and the Palestinians is not quite right.

It's interesting that when we get right down to the crux of this matter, exactly the suggestions made by 'The Golfer', later dismissed by the SCCRC, are precisely the areas that do heavily suggest improper methods were employed.

The SCCRC decision, in dismissing the possibility of fabrication and/or manipulation, came much to the dismay of Dr. Hans Köchler

Regrettably, the SCCRC has not disclosed all its grounds of referral and, in its news release of 28 June, has basically concentrated on the dubious role of Maltese witness Tony Gauci - while at the same time engaging in a rather strange exercise of "preventive exoneration" of certain people belonging to the British and/or Scottish police and judicial system whose behaviour, as pointed out in the undersigned's reports and confirmed, in the meantime, in several affidavits, has been highly questionable and may have detrimentally affected the fairness of the proceedings.

Dr. Statement by Hans Köchler on SCCRC

The dismissal by the SCCRC of these areas on contention was not something that was going to deter Megrahi's appeal lawyers however.

Al-Megrahi’s lawyers will use his appeal, which could take up to two years to come to court, to express a range of concerns over the circuitboard fragment, including the possibility that it was fabricated or manipulated. They will also raise questions about how forensic scientists concluded that the bomb was in a particular black Toshiba radio – a model and colour linked to a Libyan import company whose chaiman was known to al-Megrahi. The scientists’ initial findings indicated that the radio was white.

Lockerbie bomber’s lawyers reject ruling on fabrication

These were certainly areas of Megrahi's appeal which hadn't yet been brought before the court when Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal in August last year, but the questions certainly remain. What were the final two determinations of the SCCRC report, not to mention the remaining 700+ pages that formed their conclusions, and did Megrahi's legal team in pursuing areas that had been rejected by the SCCRC, have further evidence vindicating the assertions, and quite reasonable suspicions around the fragment, toshiba manual and babygro?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Feraday, in a fit of sudden excitement, apparently rushes up a Polaroid of the fragment, as though no other photographs exist, and sends that to Williamson.

Q- Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI 995 and the trapped material in May 1989, Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs?
A- I would imagine that he would, yes, most definitely.
Q- And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr .Hayes?
A- It is most unlikely that they would be, no.
Q- I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs?
A- No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time, no.

I've been a little slow to come around to that point but I see now how the polaroid angle really is important. Thanks. Good summation. I could quibble over the reliability of Bollier's story of the visitor on Dec 30, but I have to confess I've overlooked his Fluckiger story. Do you know if that meeting(s) was ever supported by other evidence? When I hear a specific name, I tend to think so.

ETA:
...the visit of the 'Third Man' with MEBO, on Friday 30th December 1988 approximate at 10 o'clock A.M.
shameless plug

 

[Caustic Logic]

Interesting.
It would seem to me, that for this to really get legs worldwide (not just JREF), alternative perpetrator(s) would be required to be found and a prima facie case established.

If there really has been a miscarriage of justice, it has - in part - been addressed by his release.
I'm no legist but don't they need additional compelling evidence first, before they re-open a case and spend squillions more of public money?

What will ultimately be achieved even if he is cleared? Has, and/or how, is the public best served?

I just wanted to express my appreciation for this thoughtful post. This issue does in fact have legs well beyond this forum already. It's getting wide airing inside the UK, as Rolfe has been showing, and a bit elsewhere. But compared to the mainstream/corporate media, and government sources in the UK and US, its legs are tiny.

So the notion that we've got (or had) the wrong man is somewhere well between Internet chatter and established truth. Just where is harder to say. Since the ossified leadership who've covered for this so far aren't going to lead the way to truth, I'm banking on increased public awareness and a groundsweel from below. I suspect these JREF discussions are being read wider and wider, even in the U.S., as a cutting-edge source to learn more.

It's just that "wider and wider in the U.S." doesn't really mean a whole lot.

BTW, here's an American broadcast of quite good quality (except for the timer "experts") but from a different time - 60 Minutes, 1999
Mebo video
Plane Truth transcript
After the rather unexpected verdict, it seems the lid went on reporting like that.

If Megrahi were ever formally cleared, we'd have a potential can of worms. Someone else didn't and never once got caught, for one thing. The how and why of this "mix-up"would arise, related cascading questions of who knew what and when ... I could offer more specific predictions, but they'd be from my ass. I would recommend calm in that situation, a minimum of vengeance and slower deeper understanding of the kind we tried to avoid first time past.

I do admit I'm a little fuzzy on the big picture of what then. It's pretty hypothetical for the moment, but time do-a-change, so it's something worth some serious thought.

 

[Buncrana]

... I could quibble over the reliability of Bollier's story of the visitor on Dec 30, but I have to confess I've overlooked his Fluckiger story. Do you know if that meeting(s) was ever supported by other evidence? When I hear a specific name, I tend to think so.

ETA:
...the visit of the 'Third Man' with MEBO, on Friday 30th December 1988 approximate at 10 o'clock A.M.
shameless plug

Oh, absolutely the reliability of Bollier is not up for question. It's utterly unreliable and I do try my upmost to avoid taking anything from his site or comments, unless verified by another source, preferably, the court transcripts. It's annoying about Bollier, because, I think there alot he says is probably true, but there's a fair amount of either self-protection and/or misdirection, thereby rendering everything he says as untrustworthy.

I'm going to try and have a trawl over the transcripts to gather the precise context of Fluckiger's testimony at Zeist, and his questioning about visits to Mebo in 1989, but I did pick-up this article outside of Bollier:

It would appear that the Crown was well aware that the June 1989 meeting at MEBO clearly contradicts the official version of the Lockerbie investigation, as the following exchange between Mr. Turnbull and Peter Fluckiger at the trial indicates.
Q: Thank you. Now, these photographs you had with you when you went to visit Mr. Bollier on the 2nd of October of 1990?

A: Yes. This photograph and the one we saw earlier. (NB. The photographs of PT35b and the MST13 board)

Q: Thank you. In your memo, which we looked at a moment ago -- and perhaps we should have it back on the screen, Production 1562, image 4. In your note here you speak, I think, in the first paragraph about a previous meeting; is that so?

A: That is correct. Yes.

Q: What was the date of the previous meeting?

A: I don't remember this by heart, but I can read it here. I wrote down 22nd of June 1989. It would have been on that date.

Q: Thank you. Was that previous meeting in connection with MST-13 timers?

MR. BURNS: Don't answer that question.

http://www.firmmagazine.com/features/546/Lockerbie%3A_J'accuse__-_by_Dr_Ludwig_de_Braeckeleer.html

 

[Rolfe]

I've often read that the Answer to Lockerbie lies in Germany, most likely in some of the German based articles I browsed over many years ago when looking into the Autumn Leaves operation. While I may not wholly subscibe to this premise, as I believe the answer of how Pan Am 103 came to have a suitcase containing a bomb placed on-board lies at Heathrow, however, the answer as who was behind this and why the investigation was skewed away from the PFLP and towards Libya, may very well lie in Germany. Khreesat, to keep it short.

I have a suspicion that the bomb went on at Heathrow, but the reason for the subsequent cover-up and other general shenanigans is something very much to do with Frankfurt.

However, the framing of Megrahi and Libya is a curious aspect. My tuppence worth....

I think the consideration of framing Libya, and possible even Megrahi, was made very early. Whatever Bollier claims of how he came to type out that statement within a fortnight of 103's bomb, someone thought it important enough to visit Mebo during the nascent period of the investigation. The wheels, if already not in full motion, were greased and beginning to turn. Problems however, were being collected all over the hills around Lockerbie, while the publicity that the Autumn leaves operation had attracted, would provide an additional hurdle, if it was to be announced that a bomb had indeed brought down 103.

Would you care to comment on my recent post in the "Timelie of Libyan blame" thread? I have to agree that the concept of framing Libya seems to be remarkably early. Reagan went off on one against Libya on about day 7, despite precisely zero evidence suggesting Libya had anything to do with it. And didn't we come to the conclusion that Cannistraro was leading the CIA arm of the investigation from the beginning? Then of course there was Edwin's weird letter.

There was a change of US president a month after the bombing and I wonder if that had any influence? This is always said to have happened at presidential/prime ministerial level. Bush had been president for less than two months at the time of the legendary phone call.

I'm having great difficulty believing that Megrahi in person was the target as early as that though. This was two years before he was actively investigated as a suspect, and even if someone was playing a long game, it's a stretch.

I think the FBI were quite confident that Tony was so suggestable, perhaps a bit of a simpleton, [....]

I'm not at all clear the FBI was in on this plot. Dick Marquise seems sincere. If he was aware of major shenanigans, would he jump into internet discussions to confront sceptics? I think he's in Chaos's category 1.

The FBI were pushing and pushing at Tony from day 1, including wanting to offer him untold riches for an identification, less than a month after his first statement. More than a year before anybody fingered Megrahi. This could have gone very badly wrong and nearly did. If the CIA knew about Megrahi and wanted him implicated, wouldn't they have found some pretext to introduce him at that stage?

Everything connected to the day of sale, pointed back towards Talb who by late 1989 was also known to have travelled to Malta in the months before Lockerbie.

I'm not convinced Abu Talb was the purchaser either, what age was he at the time? Would he have fitted the description? Also, a bit dangerous to make such a conspicuous purchase in person, if you're a known possible suspect. I suspect it was someone ostensibly unconnected with the plot, maybe even Libyan or pretending to be, who would vanish as mysteriously as he came. A red herring for the police, if the clothes happened to be traced. It's the only explanation I can think of for such a peculiar purchase.

Quite why the hunt was still on for a match to the red circle photo of the fragment PI995 was proving quite such a challenge after Hayes memo to Williamson is another very strange episode, when during Zeist, is was commented that the Swiss police, and Peter Fluckiger, had been to Mebo in June 1989 to see Bollier in connection with MST timers. However, that wouldn't have done for the Scots police to know about this, when they hadn't known anything about a possible timer id until June 1990 and Thurman's quick take-up, never mind September when the first got Feraday's excitable polaroid of a fragment, or even actually June the year before when the swiss had went to visit Bollier!

I forgot about that. Honestly, how can that fragment not be a plant? This visit was, as you say, before Feraday sent his polaroids to Williamson, which is the first date (photo excepting) that the fragment can be definitely seen to be present in the evidence. It was supposed to be lying quietly in store in Kent, unremarked, even though fragments of circuit board were at a total premium, Hayes having unaccountably not thought it worth following up.

My hypothesis was that the decision to pull this trick was taken in April in Maryland, at Cannistraro's instructions, following general presidential directions. The manual page wasn't a problem, thanks to Toshiba in Japan, and that was introduced into the evidence in sequence in May. It was more difficult to fabricate the timer fragment, and the shirt collar with all its contents wasn't ready till September. June could be the acquisition of the necessary material, if the CIA didn't have a spare one to use.

And, that photo.

Feraday, in a fit of sudden excitement, apparently rushes up a Polaroid of the fragment, as though no other photographs exist, and sends that to Williamson.

Q- Very well. Is it not the case, Dr. Hayes, that if you had photographed PI 995 and the trapped material in May 1989, Mr. Feraday would have had access to those photographs?
A- I would imagine that he would, yes, most definitely.
Q- And would those simply be Polaroid photographs that you took at that time, Dr .Hayes?
A- It is most unlikely that they would be, no.
Q- I see. Well, you can cast no light on the matter of why Mr. Feraday, in September 1989, would be relying, because of the short time interval, on dubious-quality Polaroid photographs?
A- No, I can't think of any explanation at all, certainly in view of the apparent interval of time, no.

Uh, yes. That is confusing me. As we can see, there was a photo. Not only is it the most iconic image of the entire bloody trial, so he could hardly have forgotten about it, he wrote the word "photo" in the margin to record that one had been taken.

But when asked, he doesn't mention it. He doesn't even seem sure whether he might have used a Polaroid camera, even. For goodness sake, how stupid is this guy? Any normal scientist at this point would say, no, all these routine photos would have been taken using 35mm film, or whatever. He's just so delightfully vague all the way through. (Of course, he had been out of RARDE and trimming toenails for ten years by then.)

All he had to do at that point, to counter the insinuations from the defence, was to say, yes indeed, that photo with the fragment circled in red was taken at that time, and if you doubt the provenance we can have the negative located at RARDE with the May provenance. He didn't. He even left the door open a crack for the photo to turn out to be a polaroid, if it should ever occur to anyone (as it did to Dan O.) that that photo had to have been taken during the investigation described in the page 51 notes.

Is this just more monumental incompetence on Hayes's behalf, or is this cunning like a fox?

The SCCRC decision, in dismissing the possibility of fabrication and/or manipulation, came much to the dismay of Dr. Hans Köchler

Dr. Statement by Hans Köchler on SCCRC

The dismissal by the SCCRC of these areas on contention was not something that was going to deter Megrahi's appeal lawyers however.

Lockerbie bomber’s lawyers reject ruling on fabrication

These were certainly areas of Megrahi's appeal which hadn't yet been brought before the court when Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal in August last year, but the questions certainly remain. What were the final two determinations of the SCCRC report, not to mention the remaining 700+ pages that formed their conclusions, and did Megrahi's legal team in pursuing areas that had been rejected by the SCCRC, have further evidence vindicating the assertions, and quite reasonable suspicions around the fragment, toshiba manual and babygro?

This is an extremely interesting line of thought.

First, I'm confused as to whether Megrahi changed his lawyers. The current firm is Taylor and Kelly, and Taylor was the name of his advocate at Zeist. Who demolished Giaka, so he wasn't exactly not trying. But Kelly is a solicitor (writer), not an advocate, which suggests a firm of solicitors. And the current advocate is a woman.

I find it hard to doubt the Maltese clothes, which tends to exonerate the babygro. But the timer fragment and the manual page - oh yes. I did note that it was reported somewhere that part of what satisfied the SCCRC on such counts was new evidence from RARDE. That negative? Well, they had long enough to fake it, if it's possible to fake such a thing. I don't know. We need an FoI request on that report, but it would be refused.

I don't know what the two further SCCRC grounds of appeal were, but probably to do with the PIIC document? Which everybody is in the dark about. But not about fabricated evidence. They do seem to have been very keen to pre-emptively exonerate the investigating and criminal justice authorities of anything more than over-zealousness in interpreting Tony Gauci's evidence without realising there was a financial consideration.

I wonder if Megrahi's team made a big tactical error here. Shooting down Tony's "identification" would have been enough to get the conviction overturned anyway, expecially if it was combined with another attack on the assumption that B8849 was anything more than a coding anomaly. These seem to have been the points the authorities were prepared to have aired in court and probably to give way on.

Although the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission referred the case back for a new appeal as a possible miscarriage of justice, it made clear that this was because of concerns over the testimony of a single witness rather than anything more sinister.
However, al-Megrahi’s lawyers said yesterday that they intended to make their appeal on a number of grounds and not just those identified by the commission.
Tony Kelly, al-Megrahi’s solicitor, said: “We don’t have to limit our appeal to the grounds the commission has identified. We have carte blanche to make it on as many grounds as we want.”

Hell's teeth, Tony, was that wise? Could it have been his stated intention to raise other matters in court beyond what the SCCRC had indicated were "acceptable" that scuppered the appeal?

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Quite why the hunt was still on for a match to the red circle photo of the fragment PI995 was proving quite such a challenge after Hayes memo to Williamson is another very strange episode, when during Zeist, is was commented that the Swiss police, and Peter Fluckiger, had been to Mebo in June 1989 to see Bollier in connection with MST timers. However, that wouldn't have done for the Scots police to know about this, when they hadn't known anything about a possible timer id until June 1990 and Thurman's quick take-up, never mind September when the first got Feraday's excitable polaroid of a fragment, or even actually June the year before when the swiss had went to visit Bollier!

That's an intriguing point, such an early visit. But it seems you might have some dates mixed up. The LTBU report for 78555 - 19 June 2000 – Day 23

Bollier then gave various different accounts of the date when he had his first interview with Mr Fluckiger. His final evidence was to the effect that this must have taken place in October 1990. It appeared that Mr Bollier was saying that the interview had taken place around March 1990. He said he would contradict Mr Fluckiger if he claimed that the first interview about the MST-13 timers took place on 2nd October 1990.

Day 23 transcript:
No hits.???
Day 24 instead:

Q All right. Let's just -- all I asked

18 you, to begin with, was when, and you are telling me it

19 was the 23rd of March, 1990. I understand that. Do

20 you remember who it was that came to see you?

21 A 23rd of March 1990?

22 Q Yes. And do you remember who it was

23 that came to see you?

24 A Two officials came from the federal

25 police, Mr. Fluckiger and his chief.

3850

1 Q All right. And they had a photograph to

2 show you; we understand that. Did you sign that

3 photograph at that stage, or a little later?

4 A A little later, when the judicial

5 assistance system came into force. And the Scottish

6 police and the FBI and the Swiss police were together

7 in Zurich when we had the first meeting. That is where

8 the photographs were included in the protocol. And I

9 was signing it.

10 Q Look for me at Production 1526, and

11 confirm, please, that the date of it is the 15th of

12 November of 1990. Now, you'll see that that's a record

13 of the hearing on the 15th of November of 1990, isn't

14 it?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Now, if that was in November, are you

17 saying it was in March that the -- Mr. Fluckiger came

18 and showed you the photograph?

19 A That is correct.

20 Q Eight months before the judicial

21 hearing?

22 A That is what bothers me. I said that

23 these people came on the 23rd of March 1990, and the

24 forensic expert of the FBI said that he found out on

25 the 15th of June 1990 that this fragment came from an

3851

1 MST-13.

Looking for Fluckiger's testimony. It's not mentioned in the LTBU summaries.
Looks like he talked on day 29, June 28.
He did a LOT of interviews with Bollier well into the 1990s, and up to trial. The earliest are the haziest.

22 Q I understand that. And what I want to

23 be clear about is this: Although this note is attached

24 to Production 1562, it actually refers to a meeting

25 which took place sometime earlier, on the 2nd of

4534

1 October of 1990; is that so?

2 A The second meeting took place on October

3 2nd, 1990. But looking at the date, I remember June of

4 1989, when I was at MEBO to visit with Mr. Bollier.

5 Q Well, let's take this a step at a time.

6 There appeared to be two lines above a black horizontal

7 line. Do you see it?

8 A Are you referring to the first two lines

9 up on top of the page?

10 Q Yes, I am. Yes.

11 A Yes. Yes. That is the introduction.

12 It's the title of the document.

13 Q Could you read those two lines to us,

14 please, slowly, so we may translate them.

15 A Well, "Note regarding second visit of

16 Commissar F at the MEBO company at Badenerstrasse, at

17 414, 3rd floor, 8004, Zurich, on Tuesday, October 2nd,

18 1990."

19 Q And is the "Commissar F" referring to

20 you?

21 A Yes, that's the abbreviation given to

22 me.


So I stand corrected.

 

[Buncrana]

I have to agree that the concept of framing Libya seems to be remarkably early. Reagan went off on one against Libya on about day 7, despite precisely zero evidence suggesting Libya had anything to do with it. And didn't we come to the conclusion that Cannistraro was leading the CIA arm of the investigation from the beginning? Then of course there was Edwin's weird letter.

There was a change of US president a month after the bombing and I wonder if that had any influence? This is always said to have happened at presidential/prime ministerial level. Bush had been president for less than two months at the time of the legendary phone call.

I'm having great difficulty believing that Megrahi in person was the target as early as that though. This was two years before he was actively investigated as a suspect, and even if someone was playing a long game, it's a stretch.

I agree, and hadn't really given full consideration to the fact there had been a change of government. In March of '89 are the first reports, attributed to Channon, that someone had been pinpointed for the bombing it would be announced any day. Channon departs from his position, and basically the whole investigation comes to a halt until August/September. Throughout this whole period, the Germans are apparently sitting on the Erac printout,which they've had sice February, and Hayes and Feraday have completely missed the biggest chunk of circuit board they've examined and photographed in May.

Eh??

I'm not at all clear the FBI was in on this plot. Dick Marquise seems sincere. If he was aware of major shenanigans, would he jump into internet discussions to confront sceptics? I think he's in Chaos's category 1.

The FBI were pushing and pushing at Tony from day 1, including wanting to offer him untold riches for an identification, less than a month after his first statement. More than a year before anybody fingered Megrahi. This could have gone very badly wrong and nearly did. If the CIA knew about Megrahi and wanted him implicated, wouldn't they have found some pretext to introduce him at that stage?

I'm not convinced Abu Talb was the purchaser either, what age was he at the time? Would he have fitted the description? Also, a bit dangerous to make such a conspicuous purchase in person, if you're a known possible suspect. I suspect it was someone ostensibly unconnected with the plot, maybe even Libyan or pretending to be, who would vanish as mysteriously as he came. A red herring for the police, if the clothes happened to be traced. It's the only explanation I can think of for such a peculiar purchase.

It seems, and must have been even more obvious to the investigators, that not only was Tony aiming for the wrong guy by indicating Talb may well have been the buyer, or at best was utterly unreliable in his recollection of a face (which, clairfying my last post, I don't think it was Talb that bought the clothing, but perhaps an associate of Talb, with or without his knowledge), but he was also choosing a date that would indicate someone other than Megrahi. So, that already looks like its a long game to work on.

Perhaps it would be just a little too bold, as soon as the MST clue surfaced and B8849 was revelaed to everyone, to then immediately look to get the Scot's police to shift Gauci's statement from 23rd and Talb to the 7th and Megrahi. The Scottish police had no control over the evidence that Thurman and the BKA has produced, but it was they who were interviewing Gauci, and perhaps couldn't be relied on to simply skew Gauci's memory without some consternation at the nature of this. Gradually however, as the trail to Megrahi was made more believeable with the identification of MST and Bollier connection, it would prove either too irresistible for the Police to make the connection and encourage the inducement and distorting of Gauci's recollection of the buyer.

I forgot about that. Honestly, how can that fragment not be a plant? This visit was, as you say, before Feraday sent his polaroids to Williamson, which is the first date (photo excepting) that the fragment can be definitely seen to be present in the evidence. It was supposed to be lying quietly in store in Kent, unremarked, even though fragments of circuit board were at a total premium, Hayes having unaccountably not thought it worth following up.

Yeah, that, and the printout. Nobody thought any of them were important for nearly 7 months...

My hypothesis was that the decision to pull this trick was taken in April in Maryland, at Cannistraro's instructions, following general presidential directions. The manual page wasn't a problem, thanks to Toshiba in Japan, and that was introduced into the evidence in sequence in May. It was more difficult to fabricate the timer fragment, and the shirt collar with all its contents wasn't ready till September. June could be the acquisition of the necessary material, if the CIA didn't have a spare one to use.

I think it's certainly fair to say, there far more possibilty of finding important pieces of evidence from an airliner blown up on the ground in Maryland that from 31,000ft and scattered over thousands of square miles of woodland, fields and sea. Similar results would be able to be determined from the tests, helping to determine strength and position of bomb, and quite possibly the kind of evidence that may have escaped from 103 when it broke apart over the Scottish border.

Uh, yes. That is confusing me. As we can see, there was a photo. Not only is it the most iconic image of the entire bloody trial, so he could hardly have forgotten about it, he wrote the word "photo" in the margin to record that one had been taken.

But when asked, he doesn't mention it. He doesn't even seem sure whether he might have used a Polaroid camera, even. For goodness sake, how stupid is this guy? Any normal scientist at this point would say, no, all these routine photos would have been taken using 35mm film, or whatever. He's just so delightfully vague all the way through. (Of course, he had been out of RARDE and trimming toenails for ten years by then.)

All he had to do at that point, to counter the insinuations from the defence, was to say, yes indeed, that photo with the fragment circled in red was taken at that time, and if you doubt the provenance we can have the negative located at RARDE with the May provenance. He didn't. He even left the door open a crack for the photo to turn out to be a polaroid, if it should ever occur to anyone (as it did to Dan O.) that that photo had to have been taken during the investigation described in the page 51 notes.

Is this just more monumental incompetence on Hayes's behalf, or is this cunning like a fox?

You know, that's exactly what I was thinking, and meant to edit my post to include my thinking on Hayes' testimony. It's vague, ambigious and weasley....or cunning I should probably say. And very diliberately so. I don't think he stupid, but he leaving himself a possible backdoor with which to present an excuse if it ever were confirmed that the photograph and the fragment was photographed in May, but inexplicably used a polaroid at this time (therefore negating any precise date), and even although his note page suggests it was (only that the page was entered latterly) examined, and photographed, during the course of his ordinary days work, which should most certainly therefore mean a professional type photograph and negative would be available.

This is an extremely interesting line of thought.

First, I'm confused as to whether Megrahi changed his lawyers. The current firm is Taylor and Kelly, and Taylor was the name of his advocate at Zeist. Who demolished Giaka, so he wasn't exactly not trying. But Kelly is a solicitor (writer), not an advocate, which suggests a firm of solicitors. And the current advocate is a woman.

..I don't know what the two further SCCRC grounds of appeal were, but probably to do with the PIIC document? Which everybody is in the dark about. But not about fabricated evidence. They do seem to have been very keen to pre-emptively exonerate the investigating and criminal justice authorities of anything more than over-zealousness in interpreting Tony Gauci's evidence without realising there was a financial consideration.

I wonder if Megrahi's team made a big tactical error here. Shooting down Tony's "identification" would have been enough to get the conviction overturned anyway, expecially if it was combined with another attack on the assumption that B8849 was anything more than a coding anomaly. These seem to have been the points the authorities were prepared to have aired in court and probably to give way on.

Hell's teeth, Tony, was that wise? Could it have been his stated intention to raise other matters in court beyond what the SCCRC had indicated were "acceptable" that scuppered the appeal?

Rolfe.

I'm really not sure if Megrahi has changed lawyers although I do know that lawyer Eddie McKechnie also represented Megrahi during his submission to his 2nd appeal. Whether these are appointed by Megrahi himself or the Libyan govt., whom I understand were financing his legal representation for much of the period, or some other body I'm really not sure at all.

It's an interesting thought Rolfe, about the possiblity that the fact that Megrahi's defence team, despite being aware that the discrediting of Gauci's evidence would be enough to see their client's conviction quashed, were intent, and had made it very clearly known, on pursuing every further avenue available to them that would expose the charade that Zeist was. It'd be bad enough on sending Megrahi home from the collapse of the Gauci evidence, but perhaps something that would be bearable, claiming Megrahi got off on some sort of technical aspect, and really was the bomber, and in time, would settle down and blow over. However, to expose the whole shebang of Zeist and the deeply flawed, perhaps fabricated evidence, would be simply intolerable for any government, most especially the country who justice system and courts had accepted and convicted on.

 

[Rolfe]

All that was necessary to prove Megrahi innocent was to show he didn't buy the clothes, and break the link between Malta and Frankfurt. I think both had to be done, just in case a court as biassed as we've seen in this case up to now decided that either action was enough to prove guilt.

In fact it was the other way round. Why was Gauci's tentative "resemblance" elevated to identification beyond reasonable doubt? Because the guy with the "resemblance" was the same person as was at the airport when the bomb went on the flight. Why was tray B8849 found to be the bomb bag, and not a coding anomaly or something else innocent? Why was nobody interested in either of the other apparent coding anomalies on the Erac printout? Because the guy who bought the clothes was at the airport when the B8849-pointing flight departed.

Kill one and you kill both, actually, but would anyone have trusted a court to follow this, on past experience?

However, show the date wasn't 7th December and frankly you're motoring. Then point out that the court accepted a totally evidence-free conspiracy theory about suborned Maltese baggage staff as being preferable to a perfectly unremarkable coding anomaly at Frankfurt, and I'd say you're done.

Kelly and his team must have been absolutely seething about the rest of it to want to drag it in. I fear this may have proved the stumbling block for those who had been prepared to let the appeal go ahead if it was only going to cover the clothes purchase.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Rolfe, I very much dig that one-two punch proposal. These are the supposedly solid points pointing at Megrahi for the actual bombing, corroborating each other even if both have fallen. It so hapens these are the main points I made in response to American family member Brian Flynn the other day, besides belligerently challenging him to a debate.

"6. Megrahi traveled to Malta on December 7, 1988 and purchased clothing and other items from a shop which ended up at Lockerbie."

How ell have you researched that? What details of Gauci's testimony, to you, are most consistent with a December 7 purchase? And as I posted in the wrong spot earlier:
Tony Gauci did "identify" Abu Talb at a time when he was a suspect, but about 14 months later (Feb 15 1991) he did also "identify" Megrahi from a photo, as the closest fit among 12. All 12 were far too young to be the purchaser he described, but Megrahi, who looked only "ten years" too young (Gauci's words - actually 14 years), was the closest fit among those they picked for him. And then he was paid $2 million by the US DoJ after the verdict, with another $1 million for his brother's help keeping up Tony's "resolve." Good evidence? Only evidence linking Megrahi to the bomb bag.

You mention Megrahi's presence with Fhimah on Malta Dec 20-21 as evidence. Could you explain why that's relevant? What's the evidence connecting Malta to the bombing? (I know what it is, just wondering how well you understand it)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-06/hed-tk/
No response yet to the debate challenge.

However, "Bunntamas," or "Bunny," who at leastclaims to be an American family member, at the related post's comments section at Robert Black's blog just now showed a keen interest in bringing the discussion to this very forum. I'd like to bump the thread and fluff the nest in case he decides to pop in here.

New members can start threads, just not post links, right? Maybe I can suggest, if he (or she?) reads this, to start a new thread and use broken HTML to circumvent the filter until post 15 or 16. Here's a welcome mat too, in advance. I'm not up to digging for a smilie - if we have it, here it is:

:welcome:

 

[Caustic Logic]

"Bunntamas," or "Bunny," who at leastclaims to be an American family member

Not to doubt him, just ... we're skeptics here. It's habit.

 

[Buncrana]

I don't want to burst anyones balloon, but don't hold your breath Caustic.

This is ceratinly one occassion however, I'd welcome being proved very wrong by further contribution, relevant to the conviction of Megrahi and evidence presented, by Bunntamas, or Bunny.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I'm breathing normally, in, out,etc. But he sounded pretty into the idea, after a little provocation both ways.

I do so wish this blog had a forum application. With all due respect to Pr. Black, I loathe scrolling up & down in the comments here.
I have no intention of taking web traffic away from Pr. Black, but I would like to share more with you all in an actual forum.
Perhaps JREF? or if you would prefer another venue, please advise.
Obviously, there are many issues to pick apart, upon which we have just tipped the iceberg here in this comment section about one article, on a blog that has been posting for years.
However, one point in particular I would like to jump into is the terrorist training that took place in Libya, about which Bollier, under oath, admitted to attending. I have certain declassified documents that I would like to reference in said banter. From there, I'm game to go on.
Anyone up for more fodder?
Name the place. I'm game.
Best,
~Bunny

Seems to have been a parting shot for the night, but tomorrow coming up quick, or already there for you. Good chance.

 

[Buncrana]

I'm breathing normally, in, out,etc. But he sounded pretty into the idea, after a little provocation both ways.

Seems to have been a parting shot for the night, but tomorrow coming up quick, or already there for you. Good chance.

I've lost count how many times I've been promised open, frank, issues discussed, tip of the iceberg.....on a host of websites and forums dating back to the late 90's and early new millenium..and the light seen at the end of the tunnel was revealed not to be daylight but another oncoming train.

Bunntamas, prove me wrong. You've been providing the occasional outburst for a few years on Prof Black's blog now, and your posting style reminds me....

And before providing all these .docs you have, could you set your mind to answering the most valid points made to you regarding Mr Gauci, the details he gave of the purchaser, the date of sale as Mr Gauci told investigators, and MrGauci's subsequent compensation received.

Then, perhaps we can discuss, the penchant for "terrorist training camps" and the sort...

Thanks,
eddie

 

[Rolfe]

I was just thinking, if he came here, keeping "Buncrana" and "Bunntamas" straight at first glance could get tricky....

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I was going to post Brian Flynn's list of "things to consider", but it's a bit of a derail for this thread. We do have a thread dedicated to posting evidence that Megrahi was guilty - If I post it there, will you come and chew it over?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I am grateful to JoG from Robert Black's blog for sending me this link.

The Lockerbie Judgement, by David Morrison

I confess I never saw this until this evening. I don't know who David Morrison is - the name rings a faint bell, but it's such a common name I couldn't really say. The article seems to have been published in a very obscure magazine, and I can't see a date on it.

I feel like I just climbed Ben Brackie the hard way, only to find Maw Broon and the bairns sitting on deck chairs having a picnic at the top.

It is inconceivable that the three intelligent men who put their names to the judgement believe that the prosecution proved that Megrahi was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. As we show in an analysis of the judgement presented below, reasonable doubt leaps out of it all over the place. The judgement is perverse. This extraordinary outcome is a consequence of the extraordinary decision of the Scottish prosecution authorities to indict the two Libyans in the first place. They did so on the evidence of Abdul Majid Giaka, a former member of the Libyan intelligence service, the JSO, and from August 1988 a CIA asset. During the trial, the defence demolished his credibility as a witness, so much so that the judgement discounts his evidence almost entirely. Before they charged the two Libyans in November 1991, Scottish prosecution authorities had a duty to ensure that their key witness was credible. They did not do so. This gross incompetence had consequences of geopolitical importance: it led to economic sanctions being imposed on Libya for most of the 90s at the behest of Britain and the US in an attempt to force Libya to hand over of the accused for trial.

What is more, the CIA and therefore the US Government knew that Giaka was not a credible witness—it was in the cables which his CIA handlers sent back to Langley about him from August 1988 onwards—but they kept this information from the Scottish prosecution authorities. The CIA may even have furnished Giaka with the 'evidence' he gave about the two Libyans. Be that as it may, the Scottish prosecuting authorities allowed themselves to be conned by the CIA.

He actually gets closer to the nub of this aspect than Paul Foot, who was previously the best source I had found.

Had the Scottish prosecuting authorities done their job in 1991 and made it their business to acquaint themselves with the CIA's experience of Giaka then Megrahi and Fhimah would never have been charged—and Libya would not have had economic sanctions imposed on it for most of the 90s for refusing to extradite them. Clearly, the CIA deliberately kept vital information about Giaka's lack of credibility as a witness from the Scottish prosecuting authorities. But it was their job to make sure their key witness was credible, to demand a full account of Giaka's history with the CIA and to bring charges against the two Libyans only if that history revealed him to be credible.

(There is, of course, an alternative explanation to this: that the CIA supplied Giaka with the 'evidence' incriminating Megrahi and Fhimah and dangled a carrot of a $4 million reward in front of him if he performed well enough at a trial to get them convicted. Megrahi was a suspect by early 1991 with tentative identification evidence against him, so it is possible that the CIA decided in July 1991 to make their hitherto useless asset perform a useful service for them by incriminating the two Libyans. Obviously, Giaka could only perform that service if the CIA's experience of him was kept away from the Scottish prosecuting authorities—and the defence.)

This last is a very perceptive point. How on earth did Giaka know to make stuff up about a brown Samsonite suitcase without somebody prompting him?

And it gets better....

One of the trial judges, Lord Coulsfield, then intervened:—

'Does that include, Lord Advocate .... that Crown counsel, having considered the documents, can say to the Court that there is nothing concealed which could possibly bear on the credibility of this witness?'

To which the Lord Advocate replied:—

'.... there is nothing within these documents which relates to Lockerbie or the bombing of Pan Am 103 which could in any way impinge on the credibility of Mr Majid [Giaka] on these matters'.

That is a barefaced lie by the chief law officer of the Crown in Scotland. The uncensored cables revealed, amongst other things, that the CIA believed Giaka to be in the business of selling information for his own benefit. One doesn't have to be a lawyer, let alone the chief law officer in Scotland, to recognise that this 'impinges upon the credibility' of Giaka as a witness, as did other matters from the uncensored cables. A witness in court who is caught out lying can be charged with perjury and even gaoled, but the chief law officer of the Crown in Scotland can apparently lie with impunity.

And that's just a few selections from the beginning. He goes on to take the court judgement apart in the crucial areas - Gauci's identification of Megrahi, the dating of the clothes purchase to 7th December 1988, and the (lack of) evidence for there having been an unaccompanied suitcase on KM180.

He points out, quite rightly, that you don't need more evidence or even a pro-Megrahi gloss on the findings. You just need to read what the Noble Lords themselves said to realise that he didn't do it.

And this is true.

(He peters out a bit at the end, without going into the bizarre vanishing Frankfurt baggage records or the details of Bogomira Erac's evidence, but he doesn't miss a serious trick.)

Read this stuff, people.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just found a better copy of that article, as a pdf.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/libya/lockerbie-perverse-verdict.pdf

The author seems to be a fairly prolific left-wing journalist, and I got that from his own web site. It's dated to March 2001, which explains why there's no mention of the first appeal.

It deserves wider circulation.

Rolfe.

 

[Kopji]

I'm afraid we've sent not even a third string debunker. I hope that does not reflect poorly on what the US forum members think of the quality of this CT. (Actually CT sort of bores me, seems too much like religion.) However, I must congragulate Rolfe and Caustic for a first rate effort at stirring up Ugly Americans. Huzzah.

I think a case that has not been made very well is WHAT US government would gain from framing someone for the bombing... to protect Iran? Ok then. That's a real good start at something sounding like nonsense. And 10 years later? This is a slooooow conspiracy.

So to recap, as I follow the story so far... poor innocent Scotland, never suspecting that the US was secretly pulling all the puppet strings of their court system by way of the Netherlands and an entire entourage of Europeans under our control. OUTRAGE!

(That general strawman summary does seem fit for the CT forums, but I'm only a beginner Evil Minion).

If nothing else, the US has shown little need to place blame on individuals for terrorism - we bombed Libya and could just as easily have done it to Iran. Finding one person to blame, frankly does not sound like worth this kind of effort.

Far more likely that we'd leave it all to an international court, and if they screwed up or looked completely inept - that's gravy for the goose. We don't like international courts anyway and it would let us feel smugly superior.

And so what if Iran had Libya do it for them? I think you alluded a bit to this, and good credit to you if so - it is much better conspiracy - this new revelation is timed just as things heat up with Iran, and we could develop it into a justification for military action against Iran like we did with Iraq. Scotland comes in handy one more time.

A little more on this later.

But to the topic. If we were going to frame someone, why do in such a messy trial format? Even Libya specified criteria for the trial:

Libya made three stipulations, when agreeing to hand over the two accused to the Scottish police: that they would not be interviewed by the police; no one else in Libya would be sought for the bombing; and, that the trial should be before three Scottish judges, sitting without a jury. On 5 April 1999, over a year ahead of the start of the trial, Megrahi and Fhimah arrived in the Netherlands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_bombing_trial

What self respecting Evil Empire would allow Libya to dictate the terms of the trial we were trying to fix? But could this be expected at an International Court following Scottish rules? Yeah this sounds entirely plausable.

As far as I can tell, all of the latest Iran conspiracy stuff is coming from an ex CIA agent named Robert Baer. The wiki article is facinating, apparently he was pulled out of Iraq for attempting to assinate Saddam. Nice guy. Seems a little loopy to me but what do I know?

...In an interview with Thom Hartmann on June 9, 2006, Baer was asked if he believed "that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to the September 11, 2001 attacks within the U.S. government". He replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it." However, he later stated, "For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Baer

Oh, good thing that he added that last part for the record. I would hate to find out he was a troofer. Would make this too easy. Still, sounds like an ex CIA employee with an axe to grind and more books to sell - (we must grow them like weeds).

Rolfe
That forum area tends to stomp all over people who question the Official Version of events involving large airliners full of Americans crashing into buildings. Suggestions that the US authorities colluded in deceiving the justice system don't go down too well either. In particular, right now we're led to believe that the US press is full of articles baying for the blood of this fanatical terrorist responsible for snuffing out 270 innocent lives and so on, so it's not exactly a dead issue. However, the silence from the JREF debunking squad suggests to me that the concept that Megrahi is innocent is becoming accepted in the forum.
#478

I'd have to agree that CT is a graveyard and things deserve to rot here. I'm a little curious where you are hearing all this from. Not that I deny someone is talking about it somewhere. But I've been looking through the papers and it IS a dead issue here. It is not even last page news. Everything looks larger on the internet, but it would be useful for some names and sources in the US so I can look up what other foolish things they are saying.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm afraid we've sent not even a third string debunker. I hope that does not reflect poorly on what the US forum members think of the quality of this CT. (Actually CT sort of bores me, seems too much like religion.) However, I must congragulate Rolfe and Caustic for a first rate effort at stirring up Ugly Americans. Huzzah.

Kopji, I admit I was trying to be a little provocative with the title of this thread, but the point of the exercise is not "stirring up Ugly Americans". I'm interested in the truth of what happened. If that sounds too much like "twoofer" for you, then that's not my problem. And Caustic Logic is American.

I think a case that has not been made very well is WHAT US government would gain from framing someone for the bombing... to protect Iran? Ok then. That's a real good start at something sounding like nonsense. And 10 years later? This is a slooooow conspiracy.

Er, could we just step back here a minute? I've presented detailed evidence that the CIA and the US Department of Justice actually did conspire to procure fabricated evidence against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and to induce another witness to slant his evidence to be more favourable to the prosecution case, by paying out millions of pounds to these witnesses.

If a hypothetical case is being presented, talking about suspicion only, then yes, it might be reasonable to counter this by questioning whether there was any motive for such an action. However, I have not presented a hypothetical case. I have presented the evidence that it was actually done.

If I have CCTV pictures clearly showing someone shoplifting, it's hardly an argument to state that this person has plenty of money and would surely have no need to steal.

So to recap, as I follow the story so far... poor innocent Scotland, never suspecting that the US was secretly pulling all the puppet strings of their court system by way of the Netherlands and an entire entourage of Europeans under our control. OUTRAGE!

(That general strawman summary does seem fit for the CT forums, but I'm only a beginner Evil Minion).

Er, no. Ever heard of the "special relationship"? No "poor innocent" anything. Scottish police were nominally running an investigation that was being controlled by the FBI, Scottish prosecutors were formally bringing forward a case but relying entirely on what the US DoJ was telling them their witnesses would say at the trial. They weren't duped and it wasn't especially secret.

I think they (the Scottish prosecutors) must have got a bit of a shock in June of 2000 when they saw the unredacted cables that revealed Giaka to have invented his story for money. However, what they did after that was entirely their own responsibility. They should have shared that information with the defence - that's the law - and trying to continue with that witness after that would have been a bit pointless. However, the Lord Advocate chose to tell blatant lies to the court to conceal what the prosecution now knew from the defence, in order to protect the credibility of that lying, bribed, corrupt witness.

It would have been nice if Colin Boyd's reaction to seeing the unredacted cables had been "outrage", but sadly, it wasn't.

If nothing else, the US has shown little need to place blame on individuals for terrorism - we bombed Libya and could just as easily have done it to Iran. Finding one person to blame, frankly does not sound like worth this kind of effort.

Far more likely that we'd leave it all to an international court, and if they screwed up or looked completely inept - that's gravy for the goose. We don't like international courts anyway and it would let us feel smugly superior.

And so what if Iran had Libya do it for them? I think you alluded a bit to this, and good credit to you if so - it is much better conspiracy - this new revelation is timed just as things heat up with Iran, and we could develop it into a justification for military action against Iran like we did with Iraq. Scotland comes in handy one more time.

A little more on this later.

But to the topic. If we were going to frame someone, why do in such a messy trial format? Even Libya specified criteria for the trial:

What self respecting Evil Empire would allow Libya to dictate the terms of the trial we were trying to fix? But could this be expected at an International Court following Scottish rules? Yeah this sounds entirely plausable.

Are you any sort of an expert on Middle Eastern affairs? I can tell you that enormous volumes of stuff has been written on this, and especially on the relevance of the Gulf War blowing up in 1990-91, and the ongoing Beirut hostage situation.

The sequence of events relating to the 1991 indictments, the refusal of extradition, the sanctions imposed on Libya as a result which led to great hardship in the country, and the subsequent negotiations to try to break this deadlock and bring the suspects to trial without letting the USA get its hands on them, are well documented.

It really is a bit tedious trying to explain what did happen, to someone who just says, well, that sounds a bit implausible to me.

As far as I can tell, all of the latest Iran conspiracy stuff is coming from an ex CIA agent named Robert Baer. The wiki article is facinating, apparently he was pulled out of Iraq for attempting to assinate Saddam. Nice guy. Seems a little loopy to me but what do I know?

Oh, good thing that he added that last part for the record. I would hate to find out he was a troofer. Would make this too easy. Still, sounds like an ex CIA employee with an axe to grind and more books to sell - (we must grow them like weeds).

Robert Baer hardly figures at all in Lockerbie discussions. I have difficulty remembering his name sometimes. He's a bit on the fringe, to put it politely. It's interesting you've turned up his stuff, because as I say, it mostly doesn't rate a mention.

I'd have to agree that CT is a graveyard and things deserve to rot here. I'm a little curious where you are hearing all this from. Not that I deny someone is talking about it somewhere. But I've been looking through the papers and it IS a dead issue here. It is not even last page news. Everything looks larger on the internet, but it would be useful for some names and sources in the US so I can look up what other foolish things they are saying.

Well, that's nice. For about the past couple of months, the four US senators who are trying to get our senior politicians and First Minister to come and stand in front of their petty little committee like naughty schoolboys being summoned to the headmaster's study, have been major news. Almost every evening as I've been writing on the forum about this, a new item has come on TV detailing the senators' latest ignorant, insulting and unreasonable demands. We've had Menendez showing his ignorance and arrogance on live TV. It's been front page headlines at least once a week.

We're having to put up with our opposition politicians telling us almost every day how the talk in the USA is of nothing else, how Scotland's name is a hissing and a by-word in America because of this, and urging our own government to go and prostrate itself in abject submission to your grandstanding vote-hungry senators in atonement.

If this has all been very much exaggerated for domestic political purposes (to make our government look bad) then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. However, the alleged US outrage has been a huge issue here.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

This is relevant in all sorts of ways. Just appeared on Robert Black's blog since I posted.

Letter to Editors

In recent weeks the issues surrounding the release and repatriation to Libya of Mr Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi have been dominating television newscasts, newspaper front pages, editorials and comment on letter pages of the press throughout the UK, most notably in Scotland. [....]

Ever since Mr Al-Megrahi's conviction in 2001, many of the bereaved and eminent public figures from the fourth estate, legal, political, academic and religious spheres have protested that the trial was a travesty of justice. [....]

You might also like to look at the list of current signatories. All raving twoofers typing in their underwear from their mothers' basements?

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Just found a better copy of that article, as a pdf.

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/libya/lockerbie-perverse-verdict.pdf

The author seems to be a fairly prolific left-wing journalist, and I got that from his own web site. It's dated to March 2001, which explains why there's no mention of the first appeal.

It deserves wider circulation.

Rolfe.

That's an excellent dissection of the evidence and trial, thanks Rolfe.

I have read and heard of Morrison before, although unaware that he'd produced such an incisive article on Lockerbie.

Further investigation turned up another few:

This one in particular looks at Megrahi's first appeal and it's failure.

On 14 March, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi lost his appeal against his conviction for the Lockerbie bombing. [..] It is difficult to credit this, but it is clear from the appeal court’s judgement that the appeal was brought on the wrong grounds, and as a result its failure was inevitable. As we will see below, al-Megrahi’s lawyer, William Taylor QC, made a complete mess of mounting the appeal.

Al-Megrahi’s original conviction was perverse. [...]

The appeal court judges must have been equally aware that the verdict of the trial court was perverse. Fortunately, or unfortunately, they had a legal excuse for turning a blind eye to the fact that it was perverse..

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/libya/lockerbie-appeal-lost.htm

 

[Rolfe]

That's a cracker, Buncrana. I thought such an article must exist, but I failed to find it last night.

He's saying essentially the same as what Hans Kochler said about the first appeal - and I found Hans Kochler's explanation of it compelling when I originally read it. This version, being written by a journalist and not a legal academic, just puts it so much better. He also makes some hard-hitting points that Kochler had to pussy-foot round.

I'm surprised we haven't heard from him on this matter in recent months. I presume he's still alive? The web site looks active, but the most recent article is dated 2007.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I too dig that article, got the PDF now. Morrison's an asset. I'll check the other articles later.

Kopji - rebuttal to Rolfe's rebuttal?

You made some good points in there, in a roundabout way at least, but I'm too tired to dig for them. But dead issue? Tell that to Brian Flynn, or Susan Cohen, or Jim Swire. Or the indignorant senators, or the people in Scotland who have to explain why they're not flying over there right away to re-explain what the letter said.

 

[Rolfe]

If he made some good points, maybe you could highlight them for me, because all I saw was an argument from incredulity.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Regarding Morrison's second article, I note an interesting point. He explains William Taylor's rationale for conducting the first appeal in the way he did. He seems to have believed that his approach was the correct one because the trial had been conducted by a judicial bench who delivered a written judgement, and not by a jury deliberating in secret. He was wrong, but that at least makes it more explicable.

The truly bizarre thing about the appeal judgement is that it practically states in so many words, more than once, "if you'd had the nous to appeal on the basis of this being an unreasonable verdict, then you might have got somewhere, but as you didn't, tough luck."

Morrison also highlights (in the first article) a particularly bizarre piece of reasoning from the trial court as regards the Frankfurt baggage records.

The evidence in regard to what happened at Frankfurt Airport, although of crucial importance, is only part of the evidence in the case and has to be considered along with all the other evidence before a conclusion can be reached as to where the primary suitcase originated and how it reached PA103. It can, however, be said at this stage that if the Frankfurt evidence is considered entirely by itself and without reference to any other evidence, none of the points made by the defence seems to us to cast doubt on the inference from the documents and other evidence that an unaccompanied bag from KM180 was transferred to and loaded onto PA103A.

Yes, but if the Frankfurt evidence was "considered along with all the other evidence before a conclusion [was] reached", then the points made by the defence completely destroy that conclusion!

So, the Frankfurt evidence has to be considered in context? But first, we'll consider it out of context!

They took the Frankfurt baggage records out of context and declared that tray B8849 was indeed an unaccompanied bag from KM180. Right enough, if you had no other evidence, that's the reasonable conclusion to come to. They then go on to look at the context - but they never revise this conclusion in the light of that context.

It's all very well to say, OK, these records do suggest that piece of luggage came off KM180, and ignore the admitted possibility of a coding anomaly, on the grounds that the defence failed to prove it was an anomaly. However, the wider context is that no unaccompanied bag went on to KM180, and the strength of the evidence for that is a great deal more robust than the mere supposition that there was no coding anomaly at Frankfurt.

But they never considered that. The decision that this was an unaccompanied bag is allowed to reverse completely the very robust evidence that there was no such thing, without proper weighing of the balance of the probabilities in that respect.

The judges simply take their pre-determined position that the unaccompanied bag existed, and then introduce the context of Megrahi's presence at Luqa that morning (and their decision that he was the clothes buyer, which itself rested on the decision that he'd been at the airport when the bomb was introduced....) to declare not only that the unaccompanied bag existed, but that it was in fact the bomb bag. Megrahi's presence allows them to ignore the other unaccompanied bag or bags identified on the same printout, and "in context" decide this was what happened "beyond reasonable doubt".

I can see, in a way, why so many people have trouble believing what's being said about this case. It is actually bordering on the completely incredible that a bench of High Court Judges could reason like this.

That one, and their decision that even though Tony Gauci said Megrahi wasn't "the man I saw in my shop" but merely resembled him, this amounted to Megrahi actually being that man "beyond reasonable doubt". Which itself rested entirely on their earlier decision that the date of the purchase was 7th December "beyond reasonable doubt", in spite of the contradictory evidence regarding the rain, the time of the football match and the Christmas lights.

They call it seeing a pattern.

And yet this is the affront to all reason that we're supposed to regard as an "unassailable verdict" by politicians and the media.

Meh.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Morrison's article about the 1st appeal by Megrahi casts new light on some areas that really should've been obvious on first reading. However, probably not being of the legal fraternity, he has presented a far less uncomplicated interpretation. I took that particular aspect you refer to as well Rolfe: the whole judgement keeps on inferring that since Mr Taylor wasn't challenging the verdict on being an unreasonable conviction, which may have prompted greater consideration by the appeal Judges and gave wider scope to the possibility of a successful appeal, then, what Mr Taylor has presented does not, and can not, change the initail findings at Zeist. Thankyouverymuch.

Although Morrison does make it clear that challenging a verdict is not always the most favoured route for lawyers when a case has been determined by a jury, this case had no jury (to be misdirected or arrive at an unreasonable verdict) and should therefore have been the most evident way for Mr Taylor to proceed with the appeal, while also presenting the other areas of dispute from the determinations made at Zeist and any new evidence discovered since the first trial.

The thing that perhaps irks me more than anything about people failing to accept or realise the problems behind Megrahi's conviction is, reading the Zeist conclusion by the judges, it's so blindingly obvious the huge holes and contradictions that are evident throughout their summary of the evidence, while the inference upon inference they relied on was wholly unacceptable to convict anyone on, let alone something carrying such great importance. And you really don't need to a be a Philadelphia lawyer to recognise this.

 

[Rolfe]

Evidence insufficient to support the issuing of a parking ticket. I mean that. If you couldn't show any evidence that the car had been anywhere near the parking place in question apart from a petrol receipt picked out of the gutter suggesting that a car had been there at one time, there would be no case. This case isn't any better.

When I read Paul Foot, I thought perhaps he was being a bit selective. Then I read Hans Kochler, and thought, this guy is of the same opinion. Then I read the actual court judgement, and I literally couldn't believe it. They actually say, there was no unaccompanied case introduced on to KM180, but we'll just assume there was. And they actually say, Tony Gauci hasn't identified Megrahi as the purchaser, but we'll just say he was anyway.

The appeal court judges had me going for about half an hour, as they worked through Mr. Taylor's suggestions about what tray B8849 might have been other than a case from KM180. Indeed, at each turn, thinking only about Frankfurt airport, the most likely explanation was that this was what it appeared to be.

But then I got beyond that, to where they dealt with Tony Gauci's evidence, and I was simply aghast. At every point, the trial judges had taken an extraordinarily unlikely explanation in preference to the plain, obvious interpretation, and elevated it to fact "beyond reasonable doubt". And at every point, the appeal judges looked at this and said, well, maybe so, but it's not for us to disagree.

Then I looked back at what they'd said about the Frankfurt evidence, and realised the fallacy. There was always a perfectly reasonable possibility that a baggage handler had simply tossed a case or three from elsewhere in among the Malta baggage, without bothering to follow proper procedure. As Morrison says, nobody would know, because the cases would still go to the correct flight.

Of course the Frankfurt staff were playing down the possibility of that happening, but it was admitted that sort of thing happened all the time. The records were clearly inaccurate in a number of respects. It was all very well to say, look, this system could be used to trace bags through the system and it was routinely used for that purpose, but they didn't tell us how often such a trace was unsuccessful.

Compare the admitted possibility of that having happened at Frankfurt, not to the face-value interpretation of the record, but to the absolutely rock-solid Luqa evidence that only 55 bags travelled on that plane and they were all the legitimate property of a passenger, and it's no contest.

The judges just decided they weren't going to think about it that way. They were going to decide that B8849 was from Malta first, then handwave away the Malta evidence, then elevate this mystery bag to the "primary suitcase", all because Megrahi was passing through Luqa at the right moment.

And they actually spell it out in their judgement that this is how they're viewing it.

No wonder nobody believes this. It's preposterous. How can these judges sleep at nights?

Rolfe.

 

[Kopji]

Kopji, I admit I was trying to be a little provocative with the title of this thread, but the point of the exercise is not "stirring up Ugly Americans". I'm interested in the truth of what happened. If that sounds too much like "twoofer" for you, then that's not my problem. And Caustic Logic is American.

This was linked from a similar topic thread in another forum started by Caustic Logic in which he specifically asserted the purpose of his thread was to troll, continuing some previous effort from a year ago. I provided something of an index there. IMHO I think that your motivations are more honest, but Caustic Logic is just trolling - and trolling about an event that resulted in the deaths of many innocents; in particular, 35 college students were killed. There is an implied argument that perhaps the American families are happier now with their millions than their children.

Originally Posted by Kopji
I think a case that has not been made very well is WHAT US government would gain from framing someone for the bombing... to protect Iran? Ok then. That's a real good start at something sounding like nonsense. And 10 years later? This is a slooooow conspiracy.

Er, could we just step back here a minute? I've presented detailed evidence that the CIA and the US Department of Justice actually did conspire to procure fabricated evidence against Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, and to induce another witness to slant his evidence to be more favourable to the prosecution case, by paying out millions of pounds to these witnesses.

I understand evidence generally defined as facts that help us arrive at the truth or falseness of something. I've read your links and find most of them factual, but not evidential. Several links repeat arguments that were rejected at the original trial. At least one of the links is self referental, linking to someone named rolfe and caustic logic on another blog making links to what we would call hearsay accusations. I may be jumping to a conclusion and they are different posters with the same names.

There seems to be an equation of an American 'information reward' program with bribery. I'm not quite sure how to respond to that except it is wrong to assume that the program intends more than it represents - offering an award for information leading to the conviction... etc. Or are you saying that ALL reward programs are defacto a bribery? This would be consistent with your arguments, but information reward programs are commonly used in the US. I'm not a lawyer and also don't know if the practice is common elsewhere.

If a hypothetical case is being presented, talking about suspicion only, then yes, it might be reasonable to counter this by questioning whether there was any motive for such an action. However, I have not presented a hypothetical case. I have presented the evidence that it was actually done.

If I have CCTV pictures clearly showing someone shoplifting, it's hardly an argument to state that this person has plenty of money and would surely have no need to steal.

Ah, yes we agree - closer the problem maybe. The CCTV picture is evidence, but does not make a case by itself. The video 'fact' would need to be combined with other evidence to make a case. I'm saying that you have a fact, but not a case of wrongdoing. Just because someone accepts money for information, or otherwise acts in their own self interest (witness protection in Australia?) does not mean the information was made up for financial gain. This seems to be at least partly, what you argue.

Originally Posted by Kopji
So to recap, as I follow the story so far... poor innocent Scotland, never suspecting that the US was secretly pulling all the puppet strings of their court system by way of the Netherlands and an entire entourage of Europeans under our control. OUTRAGE!

(That general strawman summary does seem fit for the CT forums, but I'm only a beginner Evil Minion).

Er, no. Ever heard of the "special relationship"? No "poor innocent" anything. Scottish police were nominally running an investigation that was being controlled by the FBI, Scottish prosecutors were formally bringing forward a case but relying entirely on what the US DoJ was telling them their witnesses would say at the trial. They weren't duped and it wasn't especially secret.

I think they (the Scottish prosecutors) must have got a bit of a shock in June of 2000 when they saw the unredacted cables that revealed Giaka to have invented his story for money.

However, what they did after that was entirely their own responsibility. They should have shared that information with the defence - that's the law - and trying to continue with that witness after that would have been a bit pointless. However, the Lord Advocate chose to tell blatant lies to the court to conceal what the prosecution now knew from the defence, in order to protect the credibility of that lying, bribed, corrupt witness.

It would have been nice if Colin Boyd's reaction to seeing the unredacted cables had been "outrage", but sadly, it wasn't.
[/quote]
Ok that's a part I'm still confused about. I have not really seen any evidence of the FBI controlling anything. If anything, they are known as documentation freaks. I read the released cables, aren't those part of the case documents? I'll go review but it does not sound like the US is culpable of anything.
Also, if they were, where was the outrage about the US getting involved back then? This whole thing seems to have started because some US politicians stuck their nose into to UK politics. Granted US politicians are a special kind of stupid.

The FBI controlling something using a facade of Scottish judges seems like a much bigger deal. Even in the US we would say 'in for a penny in for a pound'.

Originally Posted by Kopji View Post
If nothing else, the US has shown little need to place blame on individuals for terrorism - we bombed Libya and could just as easily have done it to Iran. Finding one person to blame, frankly does not sound like worth this kind of effort.

Far more likely that we'd leave it all to an international court, and if they screwed up or looked completely inept - that's gravy for the goose. We don't like international courts anyway and it would let us feel smugly superior.

And so what if Iran had Libya do it for them? I think you alluded a bit to this, and good credit to you if so - it is much better conspiracy - this new revelation is timed just as things heat up with Iran, and we could develop it into a justification for military action against Iran like we did with Iraq. Scotland comes in handy one more time.

A little more on this later.

But to the topic. If we were going to frame someone, why do in such a messy trial format? Even Libya specified criteria for the trial:

What self respecting Evil Empire would allow Libya to dictate the terms of the trial we were trying to fix? But could this be expected at an International Court following Scottish rules? Yeah this sounds entirely plausable.

Are you any sort of an expert on Middle Eastern affairs?
I can tell you that enormous volumes of stuff has been written on this, and especially on the relevance of the Gulf War blowing up in 1990-91, and the ongoing Beirut hostage situation.

I am not an expert, I shall have to rely on you to make your case or I shall probaly remain skeptical of our superpowers.
However, quantity is not quality. Briefly -

1: We don't like Iran enough to cover up their state sponsored terrorism.
2: We don't use their oil, Europe and China do. This would make our actions rather altruistic.

The sequence of events relating to the 1991 indictments, the refusal of extradition, the sanctions imposed on Libya as a result which led to great hardship in the country, and the subsequent negotiations to try to break this deadlock and bring the suspects to trial without letting the USA get its hands on them, are well documented.

It really is a bit tedious trying to explain what did happen, to someone who just says, well, that sounds a bit implausible to me.

Just because you read something somewhere and repeat it, does not mean it was true. Just because you say something does not mean it is true. As an American I hear this ALL the time, in addition to being accused of somehow being personally culpable for it, like your local bishop equating me with wife beaters in Saudia Arabia. I might take that kind of talk from Quakers, but not a bishop from a country with a religious history like Scotland thank you.

Yes, makes things seem more tedious.

The part that sounds implausible is that the FBI or CIA would jeopardize the entire US government in order to frame two innocent people from Libya, when Iran was really the guilty one.

1: Our military history has shown no such need for individual accountability for terrorism.

2: The prosecution of the crime seems very sloppy, the sort of thing that comes from people who want something swept under the rug, not someone who wants justice. Scotland put us on the scales and finds the US guilty, but all I see is a nation (that would be Scotland) unwilling to accept its own culpability in a trial that I would agree seems absurdly flawed. I doubt a conviction could have been made in the US, maybe that's why we used European courts.

Originally Posted by Kopji View Post
As far as I can tell, all of the latest Iran conspiracy stuff is coming from an ex CIA agent named Robert Baer. The wiki article is facinating, apparently he was pulled out of Iraq for attempting to assinate Saddam. Nice guy. Seems a little loopy to me but what do I know?

Oh, good thing that he added that last part for the record. I would hate to find out he was a troofer. Would make this too easy. Still, sounds like an ex CIA employee with an axe to grind and more books to sell - (we must grow them like weeds).

Robert Baer hardly figures at all in Lockerbie discussions. I have difficulty remembering his name sometimes. He's a bit on the fringe, to put it politely. It's interesting you've turned up his stuff, because as I say, it mostly doesn't rate a mention.

Had to do with the proposal of the Iran link. CT's that make terrorism out to be an "inside job" on the part of the US rely on a universe that is substantially different that it appears. Not denying we've studied it, just that we found it a stupid idea.

Originally Posted by Kopji View Post
I'd have to agree that CT is a graveyard and things deserve to rot here. I'm a little curious where you are hearing all this from. Not that I deny someone is talking about it somewhere. But I've been looking through the papers and it IS a dead issue here. It is not even last page news. Everything looks larger on the internet, but it would be useful for some names and sources in the US so I can look up what other foolish things they are saying.

Well, that's nice. For about the past couple of months, the four US senators who are trying to get our senior politicians and First Minister to come and stand in front of their petty little committee like naughty schoolboys being summoned to the headmaster's study, have been major news. Almost every evening as I've been writing on the forum about this, a new item has come on TV detailing the senators' latest ignorant, insulting and unreasonable demands. We've had Menendez showing his ignorance and arrogance on live TV. It's been front page headlines at least once a week.

We're having to put up with our opposition politicians telling us almost every day how the talk in the USA is of nothing else, how Scotland's name is a hissing and a by-word in America because of this, and urging our own government to go and prostrate itself in abject submission to your grandstanding vote-hungry senators in atonement.

If this has all been very much exaggerated for domestic political purposes (to make our government look bad) then I wouldn't be entirely surprised. However, the alleged US outrage has been a huge issue here.

Rolfe.

I guess this could be easily me 'not paying enough attention', but it is certainly not a major news item here. There was a little bit a few weeks ago - politicians looking in to BP Oil to try and do something mean to them etc. Seemed more of a kneejerk politician thing in an election year. I tend to disregard most bloggers, so there may be a lot more there.

I have difficulty accepting that if the US was so intimately involved in influencing the original case - why there would be so much concern by Scotland politicians now. The cow not only left the barn, it has wandered for years.
From my admittedly US perspective it is more likely two things:

1: The US was not as influential as is being claimed, and so most of the conspiracy theory does not hold up although parts are interesting.

2: Scotland is embarrassed by recent attention and so is trying to shift blame somewhere else. I'm not sure this is a bad strategy, after looking at the case, and I were on the Panel of Judges - I might choose something like that myself.

The crime does seem very convoluted. The chance of the bomb's discovery between Malta and the explosion seems rather high. Also high is that luggage might just as likely be diverted, grounded, or lost. It occurred to me that something they may want to remain secret would be other similar attempts that failed. This operation looks unlikely to succeed when viewed as a single event, but what if it was the only successful episode of several failed attempts? I can see them wanting to keep that kind of evidence secret. Just speculation though.

Sorry for not engaging in the thread more quickly. When I agree with you or decide I'm wrong I'll say so, but my silence more likely means I'm working in my garden, or - this week - repainting a room my silly daughter painted several years ago dark blue walls with bright yellow ceiling. That is just wrong - and it is taking several coats of primer.

Looking at the facts you've posted I think we might agree on several things, but definitely not on others.


*************************************************
random readings

The SCCRC states that at some time after the appeal the two witnesses were each paid sums of money under the "Rewards for Justice" programme adminstered by the U.S. Department of Justice [SCCRC Reference at 23.19]
- can't find this one, but the program type is common

The evidence regarding the bribery of the Gaucis is available here (go to page 90 of the pdf, page no. 149 of the document.)
-This is part of the actual court transcript, how is that being hidden?

Guardian article summarising the bribery evidence
- Caustic Logic's compilation of the bribery evidence (self referential)

 

[Caustic Logic]

Very long post - select response:

This was linked from a similar topic thread in another forum started by Caustic Logic in which he specifically asserted the purpose of his thread was to troll, continuing some previous effort from a year ago. I provided something of an index there. IMHO I think that your motivations are more honest, but Caustic Logic is just trolling - and trolling about an event that resulted in the deaths of many innocents; in particular, 35 college students were killed. There is an implied argument that perhaps the American families are happier now with their millions than their children.

Well I'm glad you find one of us relatively honest, anyway. I didn't mean to imply that the family members were happy to trade theor loved ones for money. It's quite tricky to mention the money angle, and easy to say it wrong or for it to be read wrong. Maybe you're referring to something else, but , my main issue with that is this: if a person has accepted millions of dollars from a supposed culprit, on the premise of that culprit's guilt, they may be biased/impaired when it comes to considering if that culprit might not really be guilty. Do you grasp that concept? It's called conflict of interest. So long as they don't talk about Libya's guilt, it's no problem. When they do, they could just re-confirming their compromised view of things, for all we know.

Several links repeat arguments that were rejected at the original trial.

So was the truth. What's your point?

At least one of the links is self referental, linking to someone named rolfe and caustic logic on another blog making links to what we would call hearsay accusations. I may be jumping to a conclusion and they are different posters with the same names.

No, that sounds like us. So that link is no value to you? Which one was it?

There seems to be an equation of an American 'information reward' program with bribery. I'm not quite sure how to respond to that except it is wrong to assume that the program intends more than it represents - offering an award for information leading to the conviction... etc.

The information was false. The witness and his sharper brother were asking for money, and offered money, from the beginning. They just made sure not to be too specific and concrete, but still give the impression he or they would get paid IF he kept implicating Megrahi, orseeming to do so. His info got falser (or misread worse, actually) over time and at the same time implicated Megrahi more, just as investigators were trying to do that. You really need to understand the context of these things before you can credibly say it was or wasn't bribery. Simply pointing out that a reward doesn't automatically mean that is not enough. That's an abstract logical construct. How do the facts of this case mitigate against bribery?

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts of the Gauci evidence before tossing out any more of this abstract nonsense. More links that are useless since it's evidence I vouch for, right?
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/01/evidence-reconsidered-tony-gaucis.html
And in more detail, the stuff we've established. Again, CL, Rolfe, Buncrana, and others, but c'mon man, we're the people you're talking with. This is what convinced us. Show it wrong, because presuming so just makes you look silly.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158909

Or are you saying that ALL reward programs are defacto a bribery?

I don't think that's what she was saying, but it seems to be what you were saying we're saying.

1: We don't like Iran enough to cover up their state sponsored terrorism.
2: We don't use their oil, Europe and China do. This would make our actions rather altruistic.

Ah, that's the problem, you think we're alleging the US covered this up FOR the Iranians. Far from it. Well, actually we can only guess what the reason is, but being buddybuddy is not one of my guesses.

Just because you read something somewhere and repeat it, does not mean it was true. Just because you say something does not mean it is true.

Does it make it untrue? What's your point?

 

[Kopji]

Sorry Caustic, you guys are all talking out of your hat. Post some real facts.