• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing

Yes. The story about the $3 million was around for most of the summer, but didn't seem to be corroborated. If it's in the Appeal papers, though, it's corroborated. I had also read that Tony and Paul are now living in Australia - I hadn't heard the "in luxury" part before, but I thought that must be the case.

The interest in these new papers is largely in the illumination of the Gauci family. Tony Gauci was described (by Peter Fraser) as "an apple short of a picnic". It's fairly clear he remembered something, but exactly what isn't as clear as I thought it was. (I thought his first statement was reliable, but even that is a bit dubious in places.) Paul Gauci and the father seem to have been the controlling influences, but unfortunately it was the rather simple one who actually made the sale and had to make the identification without direct prompting.

So we have a picture of Tony having some idea of the circumstances of the sale, and a description of the purchaser. This is followed by a dozen or so more interviews where the police try to get him to remember more - specifically, to remember stuff about items they want him to remember about. Oh, and they want him to identify the purchaser. Specifically, they want him to identify Megrahi, so they downplay the age and height differences between Megrahi and his original description. Gauci does think the purchaser was Abu Talb, but doesn't pick him out when given the chance. When he identified Megrahi, he actually seems to have thought he was identifying a picture of Abu Talb.

Mainly, Gauci is trying to please the police. He wants to give them what they want. So he didn't sell the man a shirt. Then he remembered selling him a shirt. He was over 50 and over 6 feet and heavy-set. Or maybe not. I'm not so good on ages (or heights? this from a man who reputedly could pick the right size out for a customer just by looking at him). The Christmas lights weren't up. Oh, they were just putting the Christmas lights up. No, didn't I say the Christmas lights were up when this happened? Does he really know what he remembers after this lot? I doubt it.

And as for him picking out Megrahi in court, well, really. You'd have to be dimmer even than Tony not to know you're supposed to pick out the guy in the dock, and Fhimah looked quite different from all the descriptions he'd been rehearsing. Even then, he apparently had to be prompted a bit. And in any case, as a couple of people said, there had been so much publicity by this time, with a number of pictures of Megrahi in circulation, that anyone who had never clapped eyes on the guy could have picked him out by that time.

A moderately bright person who wanted the reward would have been a lot clearer, and eventually given a much more confident identification. But a rather dim, slow, apple-short-of-a-picnic guy who was being pressurised by Big Brother to get it right for the money might come over exactly like that. I love the way they decided to give Paul $1 million of his very own for supporting Tony and getting him to step up to the mark.

The Herald ran with this one day this week, on the front page and an inside page (I think it was Monday but I'd have to check the paper recycling basket). No letters (or maybe one short one) and no follow-up. It's not buzzing enormously.

But I totally fail to see how that can be described as a reliable identification, given the contradictions, the changing of the story, the passage of time, and the uncertainty. Gauci never did say, that's the guy. He only ever said he resembled the guy. It looks as if Megrahi did look a bit like the purchaser, except he was younger, not so tall, and not so heavily built.

That case should have been thrown out ten years ago.

Rolfe.
 
Sorry to bump all these threads, just another thought I posted on the wrong one but here's hwere it belongs:

$4 Million Reward Offered in Pan Am Case

By Pierre Thomas and Thomas W. Lippman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 24, 1995; Page A30
The FBI yesterday announced a $4 million reward for two Libyan intelligence officers charged with the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and said it planned a worldwide information blitz seeking help in bringing them to justice.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ward032495.htm

See the poster for it as shown in Conspiracy Files, adapted by me. Clever. Suitcase bombers, we bomb back with cash, this cash could be yours if whatever. We're serious, these guys, we know it, support the war effort. Buy bonds. Offer false leads. We got filters...

Okay, so point here is this legendary $4 million dollar offer was only put up in 1995. Now, what evidence that mattered had they not already secured by then? The Mebo chip, the baggage printout, both were secured and IDd and understood by mid-1990, and helped form the 91 indictment. Giaka was in protection and off Malta and cooperating by 91 I hear. When was gauci secured? That's less clear to me, but well before 95, right?

Now, Giaka's gotta have been payed out of this, if grumbled over too. The Gaucis were paid $3 million we know of. Thurman was able to "retire" fine. I don't know about Erac. Marquise insists no one was offered money for their testimony. Only Bollier says he was offered the $4 million back in 91 IIRC. Meh.

So... did this official offer ever get paid out for anything new after 95? If not, why no more evidence unless this was a ghost of a case? Was the offer in effect before 95? Was it just a smokescreen to post-facto explain any previously agreed payouts like those to the Gaucis? Oh no, that was all BEFORE 95, so it doesn't apply we didn't buy THAT... Really, after all the evidence they had by 91, why offer up any money for a few more tidbits unless you really expect to get no more? And why even then? Simply for a public relations "blitz?" To get those faces out there and show how serious they were?

ETA: Another plea for debunk-like counterpoints! Cmon folks! I'm blogging this stuff. Many of you worry about conspiracy theorists spoutimg dangerous nonsense on the unternets, and here I am giving you an opportunity to stop the stuff at the gate and you're all just acquiescing. Shameful!
 
Last edited:
That is interesting. I thought the reward was very strange all along. It's not so unusual to offer a reward for information that leads the police to identify the perpetrator, but offering a reward for help in convicting a named person is very unusual, surely. (That link is broken by the way.)

I think the indictment against Megrahi and Fhimah was in 1991. That's when Gadaffi refused to extradite them, and the UN sanctions were imposed. I'm sure at that stage the story was that there was "incontrovertible evidence" against them. And I'm not aware of any further evidence that was secured after that date. I think they stopped interviewing Gauci after late 1990.

I can't understand what they hoped to achieve by the reward offer. They had their evidence, allegedly. They knew where the accused were, in Libya with no extradition. Were they advertising for someone to go and kidnap them or what?

All we know about the reward is that the Gaucis allegedly got $3 million. Giaka's evidence was thrown out, and in any case his main reward was the witness protection programme and the salary the CIA was paying him. I don't see any reason to libel Mrs. Erac, as there's nothing against her except a rather unusual, coincidental story. Nobody has ever suggested she reveived any money, and I can't actually see any great motivation for anyone going to the trouble of subverting her and fabricating a link to Malta at that stage of events.

I'd love to know the reason for that reward offer. Did I mention your link is broken?

Rolfe.

ETA: OK, found it, it's here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/panam103/stories/reward032495.htm

According to the article, it was about trying to bribe Libyans or other Arabs who might have information about how the pair might be apprehended, possibly information about them occasionally having ventured out of Libya.

Seeking to rekindle international interest in the bombing, the FBI and State Department said they will work with the U.S. Information Agency to communicate with persons in Libya who might assist in bringing the suspects to court.

[....]


Federal officials also plan to use radio, facsimile and matchbook covers written in Arabic in the campaign, which will concentrate on the Middle East and North Africa. In addition, the FBI will circulate traditional wanted posters and a glossy new poster showing a suitcase full of money to attract tips.


[....]


While both men are now believed in Libya, Bryant noted the bureau has received intelligence the two occasionally have left the country.


Nevertheless, it's perfectly clear that the Gaucis, especially Paul, were very keen indeed to be paid for their evidence, and every reason to suspect they were trying to please the police for this reason.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/pp60 - 231 Grounds of Appeal.pdf?
 
Last edited:
I s'pose actually reading the article would help.

Indeed, good catch: the reward (publicly at least) was about physically getting their men, rather than the evidence they needed to get them. Which they already had.

So the suggestions I've seen around that this money might be tied to testimonies and evidence are misleading. Conspiracy Files did mention it in that context.

The amount does simulate somewhat what the Gaucis finally got (up to 4, they got at least 3 we know of). Four million is the exact amount "ebol" claimed to be offered, itself good evidence they were not running around offering 4 million to all witnesses. There might be something to this of the smokescreen category, but it's not an in-the-open "of course we paid for information" type of deal.
 
They knew where the accused were, in Libya with no extradition. Were they advertising for someone to go and kidnap them or what?

That appears about the closest thing they were looking for.

I don't see any reason to libel Mrs. Erac, as there's nothing against her except a rather unusual, coincidental story. Nobody has ever suggested she reveived any money, and I can't actually see any great motivation for anyone going to the trouble of subverting her and fabricating a link to Malta at that stage of events.

Mentioning her and Thruman was hyperbole. I don't see reason to rule out secret, highly sensitive rewards, but nothing to support it either. Thurman is actuall perhaps the less likely, since all he did was look at pictures and say "yup." It was thhe American go-ahead in a previouslt Bitish operation, however, so an important yup.

Nevertheless, it's perfectly clear that the Gaucis, especially Paul, were very keen indeed to be paid for their evidence, and every reason to suspect they were trying to please the police for this reason.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/pp60 - 231 Grounds of Appeal.pdf?
[/QUOTE]

I did skim that, big document. It would be stupid to pay these guys by the terms of publicly announced reward system. However, having people believe it was that system, swindled or twisted by a moneygrubbing witness, might have been preferable to the real trade-off becoming public. Paying people money to show the bros "their position is recognised and they continue to receive the respect their conduct has earned." Conduct was to steer Tony into an increasingly Megrahi-implicating stance over the course of a dozen-plus re-interviews. That is hard work, not some simple task like telling clearly what you remembered and being done with it. Hard work deserves good pay, dontcha think?
 
I'm continuing to follow this thread with no small amount of fascination.

Still a bit behind in digesting some of it but at least one question has popped into my head that I don't think I've seen addressed.

Is there any evidence that PanAm 103 was specifically targeted?
 
I'm continuing to follow this thread with no small amount of fascination.

Fascination, huh? Great, thanks!

Still a bit behind in digesting some of it but at least one question has popped into my head that I don't think I've seen addressed.

Is there any evidence that PanAm 103 was specifically targeted?

Yes, apparently you are a little behind, but at least you stepped up and said something, which is way more than most are doing. That's a question with different answers, depending what you mean. The official story is yes, the suitcase was tagged to go through Frankfurt to PA103. I'm not sure but I think it's presumed they'd have the timetable and know roughly when it was to be over the mid-Atlantic, and instead set the timer for its very edge at farthest, making an overland crash most likely, depending on delays. As happened. Boy, that was dumb...

On this I love the BBC Conspiracy Files opening line:
"In the end, it came down as most things do to a simple twist of fate. 600 seconds, that's all that was left. Had the bomb ... exploded just ten minutes later, the plane would have been over open water, and all the evidence most likely lost at the bottom of the sea. But as it was the bomb blew up over land <snip, just 15 seconds of video and no words between the undoing> The investigation turned on one tiny piece of evidence ... this fragment <of a TIMER> was the breakthrough that cracked the case."
So the timer was set to "simple twist of fate" mode?

Anyway, I don't have a handy source where the presumed intent was stated clearest and most officially. You could check the Opinion of the Court PDF (2001), using searches for relevant words/phrases, like "tags" "interline" "routed" etc.

Officially I know of no reason this flight was targeted in particular except that it fit the right criteria in general. Rolfe will certainly have more insights on that, and hopefully this will help you get a grip on some other questions, and so on...

Side-note that ties in a bit, opinion of the court
[38] Luqa airport had a relatively elaborate security system. All items of baggage checked in were entered into the airport computer as well as being noted on the passenger’s ticket. After the baggage had passed the sniffer check, it was placed on a trolley in the baggage area to wait until the flight was ready for loading. When the flight was ready, the baggage was taken out and loaded, and the head loader was required to count the items placed on board. The ramp dispatcher, the airport official
on the tarmac responsible for the departure of the flight, was in touch by
radiotelephone with the load control office. The load control had access to the computer and after the flight was closed would notify the ramp dispatcher of the number of items checked in. The ramp dispatcher would also be told by the head loader how many items had been loaded and if there was a discrepancy would take
steps to resolve it. ... <snip, more there>
 
I'm Is there any evidence that PanAm 103 was specifically targeted?


Sorry, another tl;dr post coming up....

There are two answers to that, I think. One is that apart from a very isolated suggestion from one online source that the bomb was really intended for a direct Frankfurt to New York flight but was mis-directed, nobody has seriously claimed otherwise. If it had been a serious possibility, like with actual evidence, I would have expected the point to have been raised at least somewhere in the voluminous documentaries and discussions published by the serious investigators.

What the suggestion does address is the blatant insanity of the timing of the explosion. (Actually, it's odd how infrequently this is mentioned.) Many discussions state blandly that the bomb was intended to explode mid-Atlantic, but because the plane was late, Lockerbie happened. This is nonsense. The plane was only about 15 minutes late. It was scheduled to leave the stand at 6pm, and it more or less did that. How long does it take a plane to leave the ground, from leaving the stand, usually? Ten minutes? PA103 left the ground at 6.25, due to rush-hour traffic at the airport. That's fifteen minutes late, which is frankly nothing. Even if it had been on time, on the route it took, it would barely have cleared the coast. If it had taken the more southerly route it apparently usually took, had it not been for a bad weather system, it might have ditched in the Irish Sea. Maybe.

They had the whole bloody Atlantic out there. Four or five hours of it. WHY?

There would have been no reasonable advantage to crashing the plane on land. Trying to cause additional ground casualties that way is a small chance. Once you've cleared Manchester, habitation is the exception. Lockerbie was really bad luck. All you achieve is to leave shed-loads of evidence (literally!) for the authorities to rake over. (If you really want the chance of a crash on a city, short of a suicide hijacking, your best bet is to aim for the destination city and hope the plane is up to time - that way, even if it's late, you still get your crash.)

So, the 7.03pm explosion makes no sense in the context of PA103. It might make good sense in the context of a different flight that was supposed to be well out over the Atlantic at that time. However, if that was the case, show us the evidence, not just speculation. (And since there is no positive evidence of how the bag got on PA103, whose it was, or where it came from, you're struggling.)

If there were such evidence, then we could dismiss the 38-minute explosion, which was bang on schedule for a Khreesat-make device loaded or activated at Heathrow, as just one more spooky coincidence to join all the others surrounding this flight. But I've not seen any such evidence, merely assertion and speculation.

The second answer really hinges on whether many of the other spooky coincidences were really coincidences or not. We know there were various warnings floating around about a possible attack on a transatlantic Pan Am flight, some mentioning Frankfurt to New York (which would of course cover a direct flight as well). Evidence of people "in the know" about these warnings having changed their travel plans is usually attributed to a general avoidance of all flights in that category. However, there have been serious suggestions that those really in the know were aware that PA103 on 21st December was the specific target - even to the point that it was a LIHOP of some description.

The plane appears to have been used for smuggling heroin. One of the dead passengers was a known drug courier. Some of the most persistent CTs hinge on the suggestion that a drug suitcase was taken off and the bomb suitcase substituted (see The Trail of the Octopus). The point being that the drug suitcases were being routed past the security inspections wholesale, which is why the bomb wasn't detected. If this is the case, then there is no question of a mistaken plane.

There were a number of CIA operatives on the flight. One CT version suggests that these people were being specifically targeted. Some authors go further and link the CIA operatives to the drug smuggling, and a "drugs for hostages" deal parallel with the Oliver North "arms for hostages" affair. Which of course is one possible reason for a cover-up. There certainly seems to have been something on that flight that the US authorities didn't want to fall into the wrong hands, if even half the stories about US agents interfering with evidence on the ground from the very early stages are even close to true. There's even a suggestion that a body was spirited away.

Then again, the South African part of the CT also implies specific knowledge that PA103 was the target. Pik Botha was booked on the flight, but inexplicably at the last minute his itinerary was changed so that he caught the earlier PA101 flying the same route. Conversely, Bernt Carlsson was originally intended to catch an earlier flight (to the same conference), but may have been deliberately delayed by SA authorities so that he ended up on PA103. There is a CT that says the South Africans knew the plane was the target, and simply took appropriate steps to make sure their own people weren't on it and someone they wanted rid of was.

I haven't investigated these aspects in detail. There are certainly problems with some of these assertions, but I don't know how deep they run. It's a helluva lot of smoke to have absolutely no fire attached, but I don't know. What's the chances of any random transatlantic flight being that far up to its neck in intrigue?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, another tl;dr post coming up....
.

Lol. Sorry I'm a jerk sometimes about things like that. I suppose a veneer of smartass is one of my shields. I actually did read that, thanks for the SA VIP summary. I think I get that part better now. Compelling, but could well be coincidental.

ETA: Right brain says: of course, South Africa did the bombing itself, and framed North Africa, for some super-Rhodesian Pan-White-African-Anglo-American arching axis psyop or... hmm, nevermind. Hmmm... Mandella has been really active in all this...
 
Last edited:
I got the link to this article from Robert Black's blog.

http://www.hlrecord.org/opinion/who-was-really-behind-lockerbie-1.632554

I note Marquise is again very active in the comments section. I feel he may be protesting too much. It's all a bit pointless, in a way. Perhaps he just wants to set the record straight, right enough. But then, it's very easy just to parrot the official line and announce that your sooper-seekrit inside knowledge allows you to pontificate any way you like. Who can say?

I see another comment declaring that there was "overwhelming" evidence against Megrahi. Maybe he could show it to us, because I cannot find it anywhere in the Court publications.

Rolfe.
 
And the plot thickens even further. More from the Black blog.

Labour Peer Baroness Kinnock has been unexpectedly replaced in her post as Europe minister, only hours after pledging to investigate whether Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was pressured into dropping his ongoing appeal against conviction before being transferred to Libya. [....]

In a debate in the House of Lords on Monday Lord Lester of Herne Hill said he was “very concerned about the circumstances in which Megrahi was persuaded to drop his appeal and to go and die in Libya.”

“I saw him in Barlinnie myself. I would like to know, and I would like the Government to find out whether, when he was visited in prison, it was made clear to him that if he dropped his appeal he would be allowed to go and die in Libya, so that there would then be no appeal and the relatives—Dr Swire and the others—would never know the truth,” he said.

“I would therefore like an assurance that there was no quid pro quo and no pressure put upon him. The Government may not know the answer, but they should find out. Was any pressure put on Megrahi that he would be sent to die in Libya only if he dropped the appeal?”

Baroness Kinnock said in response that she was “not aware of what the answer might be,” but would ask for advice and respond.

Within hours, Kinnock had been replaced amid what the Daily Mail described as “farcical scenes” as her replacement, junior minister Chris Bryant “broke with protocol and announced his new role on the Twitter website before Downing Street or the Foreign Office had a chance to issue a statement.”


You couldn't make this up.

Rolfe.
 
Tam Dalyell raised an important question in the Hiuse of Commons in 2002. He was concerned with the destruction of records pertaining to Lockerbie.

He stated, "Now that the appeal is over, what steps are being taken to preserve the productions amassed by the Crown for use in the Lockerbie trial? Can an assurance be given that they will not be destroyed in the same way as certain police note books have apparently been destroyed?"

Dalyell went onto to the matter of police notebooks. Former Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, a thoroughly credible retired police constable had stated:

"Towards the latter part of 1999, I was asked to attend at Dumfries Police Station, to give a statement to the Procurator Fiscal regarding my duties at Lockerbie. Almost eleven years had elapsed since the disaster, so I phoned 'F' Divisional HQ at Livingston Police Station to request my notebook to refresh my memory. I was told that someone would be in touch with me, and after a few days I was informed that my notebook could not be found. Shortly after this I read in a Scottish broadsheet that Lothian and Borders Police notebooks had been destroyed."

Her statement continues:

"I recovered the handle and rim of a brown coloured suitcase (Production Label No. unknown to me). This was entered in my notebook. PC Forrest corroborated the find and signed my notebook and production label.

Towards the latter part of 1999 . . . On attendance at Dumfries Police Station I was asked to describe some of the debris from memory. I was then shown the suitcase rim with handle I had found and was asked to identify it, which I did. The Production Label with my signature and that of PC Forrest, and of others whom I did not know, was still attached. A photograph was then shown to me of the said suitcase rim I had found, plus other pieces of the suitcase material. I recognised the rim but not the material. I asked the Fiscal about the significance of the suitcase and he said he could not tell me. What he did say was that the owner of said suitcase was a Joseph Patrick Curry and that I would be hearing and reading a lot about him at the time of the trial."

This full statement is available through google and typing the key words: Dalyell, Lockerbie, Notebooks.
 
Oh. Thanks. Every time you think you've begun to get your head round this, some other huge confounder emerges.

It's like a huge tangled ball of string, maybe several bits of string, and several ends dangling. Which end is the key to unravelling it? I have no clue!

Rolfe.
 
Frankfurt baggage records disappear. Police noteooks disappear.

I was tentatively thinking about one tiny piece of planted evidence. But just how big is this, and is it ridiculous to think it could be as big as some people suggest?

Rolfe.
 
Tam Dalyell raised an important question in the Hiuse of Commons in 2002. He was concerned with the destruction of records pertaining to Lockerbie.

He stated, "Now that the appeal is over, what steps are being taken to preserve the productions amassed by the Crown for use in the Lockerbie trial? Can an assurance be given that they will not be destroyed in the same way as certain police note books have apparently been destroyed?"

Dalyell went onto to the matter of police notebooks. Former Woman Police Constable Mary Boylan, a thoroughly credible retired police constable had stated:

Joseph Patrick Curry, huh? Never 'eard of 'im. I'd heard before about destroyed notebooks, but this is a very interesting new tidbit. I'll check out the link later on. Thanks!
 
I'd heard this mentioned, but only when I was at the stage of being totally overwhelmed by anomalous information.

Tell you what, Googling his name gets you nothing. Just pages repeating what Tam said, and lists of the victims, and other people of the same name.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom