Merged al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing

[Rolfe]

The main difficulty with this incident is the sheer level of coincidence surrounding it, and so the difficulty in knowing what to accept as coincidence and what to look at with a suspicious eye. There are several other convincing scenarios that have the bomb introduced at Frankfurt (that's the MO in The Trail of the Octopus as well, though PA103 is the target), and in all of these we have to take the Heathrow events as coincidence.

If PA103 was the wrong plane, it means we also haven't a hope in hell of being able to account for the cancellations from the VIPs (Botha etc), or the drug courier on the flight, or the CIA operatives on the flight. All coincidence.

I could certainly accept that as a reasonable coincidental explanation for the 38-minute detonation though. As I could for the accidental detonation triggered by the VHF radio transmissions.

However, the Wrong Plane explanation is dated September 1989, and the Accidental Detonation theory is also long-standing - I recall hearing that one years ago, too. If either of them was that compelling, or had significant evidence to support it, I'd have thought it would have attracted support from at least some of the people who have been studying the incident for decades.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

The main difficulty with this incident is the sheer level of coincidence surrounding it, and so the difficulty in knowing what to accept as coincidence and what to look at with a suspicious eye. There are several other convincing scenarios that have the bomb introduced at Frankfurt (that's the MO in The Trail of the Octopus as well, though PA103 is the target), and in all of these we have to take the Heathrow events as coincidence.

Alleged Heathrow incidents. Didn't this only come to light years later? I'm not entirely clear there obviously. The feeling faded - something there was appealing, but ...

If PA103 was the wrong plane, it means we also haven't a hope in hell of being able to account for the cancellations from the VIPs (Botha etc), or the drug courier on the flight, or the CIA operatives on the flight. All coincidence.

The warning was against flights from Frankfurt to America, so basically any Pan Am flights from there in the time frame. How many of these specifically were to be on 103 and cancelled, and how many just cancelled some PA flight in that time due to the warning, plus presumptions? I'm unclear there too. Many questions.


I could certainly accept that as a reasonable coincidental explanation for the 38-minute detonation though. As I could for the accidental detonation triggered by the VHF radio transmissions.

However, the Wrong Plane explanation is dated September 1989, and the Accidental Detonation theory is also long-standing - I recall hearing that one years ago, too. If either of them was that compelling, or had significant evidence to support it, I'd have thought it would have attracted support from at least some of the people who have been studying the incident for decades.

Sometimes maybe true versions have a way of staying out of discussions. But really, I don't know. That feeling faded a bit, might be something, but...

 

[ricbritain]

That doesn't really mean much.

Private Eye did a fairly deep analysis a few years back. It's been a while, but I recall that they came to the conclusion that al Megrahi was a patsy. A couple of the points from the story I do remember were supposed discrepancies about the number of bodies found in one particular field; and that luggage was mysteriously retrieved from another field, a cover story fed to the press about looters in order to prevent others doing so. (I do remember from the news a story about looters in the fields).

It was a special edition, so it might be possible to obtain a back-copy.

It wouldn't be the first time Private Eye has gone all out to support an 'alternative theory' only to years later be completely wrong. They don't make much noise about it when it happens though. So that doesn't really count for much.

 

[Ambrosia]

It wouldn't be the first time Private Eye has gone all out to support an 'alternative theory' only to years later be completely wrong.

For example?

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

For example?

While I would normally defend Mr Hislop's Organ, and think that their Lockerbie work is extremely good, their performance on Andrew Wakefield and MMR was woeful.

Like all sources you shouldn't take what they say as gospel, but they are nowhere near as bad as many people make out they are.

 

[Rolfe]

It wouldn't be the first time Private Eye has gone all out to support an 'alternative theory' only to years later be completely wrong. They don't make much noise about it when it happens though. So that doesn't really count for much.

What's that actually supposed to mean?

The Internet is groaning under the weight of presentations of this material, including a number of sources many people would regard as reputable. The Eye's journalist Paul Foot was one of the few people who sat through the entire trial at Camp Zeist, and produced one of the most comprehensive factual digests of the evidence available.

However, if you don't like that, you can of course go to other sources, starting with the report of the Air Accident Investigation Board, the Court judgement, and the report of the official UN observer at the trial.

Then you can look at the material prepared for the appeal Megrahi abandoned when it was clear he couldn't live to see it heard by the Court.

There are at least five separate documentary films dealing with the confusions and question marks in the case - the first dated 1994 and the most recent being first aired in April of this year. All of these can be viewed online.

Doubts about this verdict, and information about the grounds for the doubts, are quite obviously not unique to Private Eye.

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

The point I am making is that the "Lockerbie" work was all done by Paul Foot.

Paul has long track record of producing quality accurate stories. (John Poulson, Birmingham 6, Bridgewater 4, Colin Wallace) The possible exception being the A6 murder case where he was convinced of Hanrattys innocence and DNA evidence from 2002 does point to Hanratty without being 100% conclusive.

It might well be fair to point to MMR and say "hang on the Eye isn't always right about stuff" but the Eye is not the work of one journalist, and Paul Foots work seems emminently credible.

You might have a point saying that "as the Eye says so it doesn't mean all that much." The same is not true of Paul Foot. I find his word to carry much weight.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, but we've arrived at a fine state of affairs if we, who depend on fairness and objectivity find ourselves looking for 'undercurrents'. The Libyan affair was a total nonsense. The truth of that crime is hidden deep in the bowels of the intelligence community. And the Libyans and most people knew that years ago. The man was in all probability completely innocent. That is my view, at least.

Chaps, we may have to reconsider. Either this is the first sane thing Especially has said since he joined the forum, or we are all completely mistaken.

Rolfe.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Chaps, we may have to reconsider. Either this is the first sane thing Especially has said since he joined the forum, or we are all completely mistaken.

Rolfe.

Meh, I'm happy to file that one under the stopped clock or blind pigs and acorns heading. I'm sure if you probe deeper he's probably a Lockerbie no-planer.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Chaps, we may have to reconsider. Either this is the first sane thing Especially has said since he joined the forum, or we are all completely mistaken.

Rolfe.

I'm going with the sane option, and maybe not even the first. It would be remarkable to keep talking that much and not say a few sane things. But man, they are few and far between...

 

[commandlinegamer]

I wouldn't put too much stock in that Especially post. The undercurrents thing was a reference to a post I made about my perceiving the BBC to have an undercurrent of defiance against the government. But it was only my opinion; I had no real evidence of such a thing.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, no, it was just a bit of a shock to the system to see Especially say something I actually agreed with.

Even if he had said water is wet, I'd have had the same reaction.

Rolfe.

 

[ricbritain]

Past alternative theory's gone bad.

For example?

The 1983 murder in England of 78 year old Hilda Murrell. At the time Private Eye and many other media outlets put her death down to everything other than what the police actually said it was, namely a vicious random murder. In the 80's nuclear power was the fashionable cause for concern and private eye ran several convincing (to some) articles claiming various links. Not unlike the space they give for Megrahi. They weren't the only ones. There were many books written on the subject, plays written and generally 'specialists' made a living from the conspiracy theory of the day. However with the advent of modern technology in 2002 the case was reopened and with the aid of DNA the killer was found and prosecuted in 2005. It had nothing at all to do with nuclear power, the British government, the USA or Russia, as had been postulated throughout the media. I'm not sure what Private Eye had to say on the matter.

The point I was trying to make was that although Private Eye is a quite reputable and often reliable source of information it is not infallible, and just because it ran an issue dedicated to Megrahis innocence is not something to be wholly relied upon.

 

[ricbritain]

An example.

What's that actually supposed to mean?

Rolfe.

All it means is that just because Private Eye supports a stance and writes a convincing argument against the official line does not mean its right. Of course that does not mean it definitely isn't. It seems there is a lot of supporting evidence for his innocence, but there was a lot of support for the other case I mention above. I am undecided and like to keep an open mind. I very much doubt we will ever find out for sure.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know that it ever "ran an issue" dedicated to Megrahi's innocence. What it has published is a 32-page A4 booklet with Paul Foot's articles on the matter collected together. It's Paul Foot's journalism at issue here, and the fact that it was published in Private Eye is relatively incidental.

Foot was one of the few (possibly the only?) journalist to sit through the entire court hearing at Camp Zeist. He thus had a perspective on the evidence not necessarily obtainable from simply reading the published documents. I thus find the report to be a very useful resource - not least because he avoids making the hyperbolic claims to be found in some other sources. Actually, as far as claims go, he really only seems to be saying that the evidence against Megrahi doesn't stack up, and there's something fishily political going on here. Which is the view of a lot of people who aren't publishing in Private Eye.

Maybe the best place to start is the two reports by the official UN observer assigned to the trial. The idea that "it's only Private Eye, what do they know" isn't really tenable when you read his opinion on the matter.

Report on the main trial proceedings
Report on the first appeal hearing

Read that lot, before deciding this is just the Eye looking for circulation.

Rolfe.

 

[Klimax]

Well, no, it was just a bit of a shock to the system to see Especially say something I actually agreed with.

Even if he had said water is wet, I'd have had the same reaction.

Rolfe.

Where? i don't see any in this thread and what I have seen elsewhere was bad...

 

[Rolfe]

I can't actually quote it now, because the "quote" button doesn't appear for posts by suspended members. However, it was in the thread he started about the BBC. Commandlinegamer happened to remark....

The BBC has been accused of anti-SNP bias and of promulgating the left-wing line during the recent Megrahi brouhaha. One merely has to look at the blog entries for reporter Brian Taylor over the last month or so to get a flavour. A couple of BBC Scotland journalists in particular have come in for criticism to the extent to which they have tried to garner pro-government, anti Libya opinion from the general public.

Especially's reply was this.

The Libyan affair was a total nonsense. The truth of that crime is hidden deep in the bowels of the intelligence community. And the Libyans and most people knew that years ago. The man was in all probability completely innocent. That is my view, at least.

Stopped clock, blind pig and all that, I suppose.

Rolfe.

 

[Klimax]

I can't actually quote it now, because the "quote" button doesn't appear for posts by suspended members. However, it was in the thread he started about the BBC. Commandlinegamer happened to remark....

It is because thread is closed,so quoting is disabled,but it is possible through PM->copy&paste to get it.

And thanks.(I am reading that thread...)

 

[Caustic Logic]

It is because thread is closed,so quoting is disabled,but it is possible through PM->copy&paste to get it.

And thanks.(I am reading that thread...)

Here's the sane quote, Klimax:

The Libyan affair was a total nonsense. The truth of that crime is hidden deep in the bowels of the intelligence community. And the Libyans and most people knew that years ago. The man was in all probability completely innocent. That is my view, at least.

I don't know what all the hype's about.

 

[Caustic Logic]

News - Megrahi's new documentation seems to show that Tony Gauci and his brother were paid $3 million for their testimony. Shoulda got it more straight for that much. It's all the buzz, as can be seen at Robert Black's blog for this month so far. Re-posts from the Spokesman (Bertand Russell Peace Foundation), Michael Meacher's blog, Sunday Times of Malta, The Herald of Scotland, so far.
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html