Merged al Megrahi and the Lockerbie bombing

[Rolfe]

Apologies if this has already been linked to, I've lost track in trying to keep up with all of this. When searcing for references to Joseph Patrick Curry (again the reference comes as part of Tam Dayell's speech), I came across this collection of documents compiled by Hans Koechler - you can read some of it online:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...e=gbs_v2_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

I think you might find that most of these are available from Hans Kochler's own web site.

http://www.i-p-o.org/lockerbie_observer_mission.htm

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

"killed in the line of duty"

Hey, Glenn's back! I did the searches now - I have to wonder just who would be telling random cops on the case that a US Special Forces guy was going to be blamed for this. Depends on who, and how they found out, etc.

I have always wondered about the suitcase and just what's known about it - were the tags blown off or what? I should know that...

... Fifty-six fragments which showed various signs of explosives damage were identified as forming part of what had been a brown hardshell Samsonite suitcase of the 26" Silhouette 4000 range (“the primary suitcase”). The nature of the damage indicated that it had been inflicted from within the suitcase.

It was argued on behalf of the accused that the suitcase described by Mr Bedford could well have been the primary suitcase, particularly as the evidence did not disclose that any fragments of a hard-shell Samsonite-type suitcase had been recovered, apart from those of the primary suitcase itself. ...

Rolfe covered their strange logic with the Bedford suitcase earlier. Here they're saying 'Well there was only one like that around the explosion, and it was the one from Malta, so whatever Bedford's talking about is irrelevant, somehow. EOS.' Anyway, there's nothing about ID with it, I don't know how one would know it was a certain person's (or tagged as such), except by looking at the tag or the contents. Was there an attempt to recover fluttering tags and find a possible match to the primary suitcase with some forensic voodoo?

I'm just not sure what to make of it.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think we can conclude that Curry was going to be blamed for the bombing. He was killed, remember?

I was thinking more about the possibility that the bomb bag had been switched for his bag at some stage. But then, he travelled from Frankfurt, didn't he, and the Bedford suitcase was seen before PA103A landed from Frankfurt.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I don't think we can conclude that Curry was going to be blamed for the bombing. He was killed, remember?

I was thinking more about the possibility that the bomb bag had been switched for his bag at some stage. But then, he travelled from Frankfurt, didn't he, and the Bedford suitcase was seen before PA103A landed from Frankfurt.

Rolfe.

Sorry, I got two lines crossed there - but that a SF guy was specified as the suspicious point-of-entry person, perhaps the owner of the bag replaced with Bedford's samsonite, which raises questions. Then I see you think Curry came in from frankfurt after all, so apparently not... I guess what I'm saying is I'm a little suspicious when someone reveals that a major clue that will later unravel the whole case is just casually handed to low-level people to later reveal. Suspicious but open-minded.

 

[GlennB]

But Boylan states:
"What he [the Procurator Fiscal] 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."

Well, that a member of US Special Forces was killed in the bombing would, perhaps, be briefly newsworthy. That Boylan would be 'hearing and reading a lot about him at the time of the trial' appears very unlikely from the p.o.v. of that time. Unless Curry was more than a coincidental victim. The CTist in me thinks that the Proc.Fisc. was maybe a little over-excited about how he saw things panning out and blabbed something to Boylan that he(?) should have kept under his hat. But then I constantly fight my own CTist tendencies and sometimes lose.

p.s. I've been following virtually your every word, folks Excellent stuff it is too, though as mentioned this particular pile of spaghetti is growing and has more dangly ends almost by the day, it seems. As Dalyell said "There is a whole literature on this subject—one almost needs to be a professor of Lockerbie studies—"

 

[Rolfe]

I see there were reports earlier today that Megrahi has died, however this has been denied by his legal team. It does sound as if his condition is very poor, however.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Apparently he is not dead just yet, as there's no more news on it.

In other news, as calls for an inquiry into Megrahi's release seem to have paid off. MacAskill's "quasi-judicial" decision has led to speculation of a deal over his appeal (drop it and go), and others want to investigate oil deals with Libya and their affect on releasing a convicted mass-cal terrorisist:

MPs will investigate the release of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing as part of a wider probe into relations between Westminster and Holyrood, it has been announced.
...
Throughout the controversy, Westminster insisted that decisions on Megrahi were the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government.

And the Scottish Government said the decisions were made by Mr MacAskill alone, acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
...
Peter Wishart, a member of the committee and SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, said:
...
“We will quite rightly not consider the decisions made by the Scottish Justice Secretary.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/inquiry-into-megrahi-release-announced-1.927714

So I guess that may cover the possible oil deals with Libya only. ??

 

[Rolfe]

Dunno. I only know that there seems to be a huge political will to thwart that appeal, and then as soon as that is achieved to crow that Megrahi "will die a guilty man" and dismiss everything he says with "well you should have thought of that before you abandoned your appeal, so shut up, mass murderer."

I'd pay good money for a factual text that wasn't running with an agenda or theory, but merely presented what was known for sure, and what could be established regarding the credibility (or otherwise) of claims that can't be objectively verified.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

To clarify the above, they won't be able to examine any of the reasons or decisions, oil or no, sine the only thing that mattered was macAskill's reasons, and those won't be talked about. Since it's about 'the release of al Megrahi,' I presume they'll be looking at narrower questions like which door was he escorted out of, in what weather, taken to what airplane, etc. Should e historic.

Dunno. I only know that there seems to be a huge political will to thwart that appeal, and then as soon as that is achieved to crow that Megrahi "will die a guilty man" and dismiss everything he says with "well you should have thought of that before you abandoned your appeal, so shut up, mass murderer."

I'd pay good money for a factual text that wasn't running with an agenda or theory, but merely presented what was known for sure, and what could be established regarding the credibility (or otherwise) of claims that can't be objectively verified.

Rolfe.

On the bolded... how much?

On dying a guilty man and not yet, your wonderful Scotman paper has dipped to a ghoulish level, counting his survival time compared to other compassionate releases under macAskill. As one commenter said, but spelled better, "What? Not dead yet? Sack MacAskill!"

 

[Rolfe]

Now that is quite disgusting. A new low has been reached. (I don't read the Scotsman, and the Herald hasn't printed that one that I noticed.) Of course the Hootsmon hates the SNP like poison, so I suppose it shouldn't be that much of a surprise, but really, have they no sense of decency at all?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Every Single Time I sit down to post on one of the PA103 threads, a picture of the plane on the grass, or of Megrahi, comes on the TV.

Now, the police are re-opening the enquiry, and they are going to re-examine the forensic evidence. However, it seems as if they are taking Megrahi's guilt - or at least the "it was Libya" theory - as read, despite the SCCRC report. They're not going to look at Jibril or Abu Talb, but about Megrahi's supposed co-conspirators.

Christine Creech/Grahame thinks this has more to do with stifling other enquiries such as her FoI requests than finding out any actual truth.

Lockerbie Families Welcome New Inquiry

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Uh, here we go again. Every TV news bulletin I watch has footage of Maid of the Seas lying on the grass at Tundergarth, and Sherwood Crescent in flames. I wake up to the normal breakfast radio news team raking over the case One More Time. This is a seriously hot topic, and while I think our conversation is constructive and productive, I'm very surprised by how few people are participating.

Anyway, I sat down to eat breakfast, opened the dead-tree paper which had been delivered earlier in the morning, and here's what was in it. (This paper is probably the best source for the Pan Am 103 case, because it's the national Scottish paper covering that turf. And the Scotsman has just forfeited any right to be called a serious newspaper.)

The front page (not headline).

Lockerbie relatives' cautious welcome for review

Relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims have welcomed a review of the criminal investigation into the atrocity but warned that it should not stand in the way of a full public inquiry.

Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among the 270 killed, said yesterday a desktop review of the criminal inquiry has always been the excuse to block a full investigation into how Pan Am flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie on December 21 1988. [....]

He also told reporters yesterday: "I think if they are really going to have a meaningful investigation then that is all well and good and long overdue. But if it is just a dodge to prevent an investigation into why the lives of those killed were not protected then I would be livid."

Inside article, page 9. Actually, the online version is quite a bit longer and more detailed than what is in the printed paper - as well as having a different headline. Oddly, there seems to be nothing in the printed paper about Henderson - the police point of view is solely represnted by Patrich Shearer. Quite a lot from Henderson online though.

Police hunt for eight 'high level' Lockerbie accomplices

Detectives investigating the Lockerbie atrocity want to talk to eight suspects linked to the bombing, according to a former head of the investigation.

Stuart Henderson, a former detective chief superintendent with Lothian and Borders Police, led the Lockerbie Incident Control Centre from 1988 until 1992.Chief Constable Patrick Shearer of Dumfries and Galloway Police said officers were following new lines of inquiry after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi dropped his appeal against conviction. [....]

Mr Henderson told the paper: "We submitted eight other names of people that we wished to interview that were strong suspects. Unfortunately, we never got that opportunity.

"I am delighted they are making moves to see if there is anything further, because no matter what anybody says, we did not ever say it was just Megrahi we were after. We never said that.

"We were after his bosses."

It is reported the "high level" suspects were all male and have never been ruled out of the investigation into the explosion onboard Pan Am Flight 103 which killed 270 on December 21 1988. [....]

Main editorial, page 12. This starts to ask some more searching questions.

Lockerbie questions

[....] The view persists that the main suspect was not Libya but Iran, which had an obvious motive: revenge for the Iranian airliner shot down by the Americans earlier in 1988 with the loss of 290 lives. Suspicion initially focused on Ahmed Jibril, leader of a Syrian-based Palestinian terrorist group linked with Iran. Conspiracy theorists maintain that it became politically inconvenient to implicate either Iran or Syria at a time when the western allies needed their support during the first Gulf War. The more prosaic reason is that investigators failed to pinpoint any evidence that a prosecutor could use to convict either an Iranian official or Jibril. The same applies to Abu Talb, another Palestinian, later jailed for terrorist offences and who had circled the fateful day – December 21 – in his diary. Another aspect of the case that deserves further investigation is a suspicious break-in at the secure baggage area of Heath­row Airport the night before the explosion, an incident not raised at the original trial.

This police review of the Lockerbie case raises several questions. Given how much uncertainty surrounds what happened, would a major wide-ranging investigation not be more appropriate? And is it right to entrust such a review to just four officers from the Dumfries and Galloway force, headed by an officer who was involved in the original investigation? A limited review that does little more than cover old ground would serve little purpose except, possibly, to delay the wide-ranging independent government inquiry into the atrocity demanded by relatives of the British victims. As Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora died in the disaster, argues in a letter published in The Herald today, the “ongoing criminal investigation” has been repeatedly used to deny relatives the full inquiry they demand and deserve. [....]

And that letter, on page 13 (scroll to last letter).

Original suspect in Pan Am atocity should be the starting point for further examination of evidence

[....] The ongoing criminal investigation has been used repeatedly as a reason for denying us the full inquiry into the truth as to why our families were not protected back in 1988. We are entitled under human eights law and now the Inquiries Act 2005 to an inquiry.

If further serious meaningful investigation really is to be pursued by the police and Crown Office as to who else might have contributed to the murder of our loved ones in 1988, I would be the first to applaud it. Mohammed Abu Talb, the original suspect in the bombing, has now been released from jail and, according to the Crown Office, was not granted immunity against prosecution over Lockerbie, though appearing as a prosecution witness at the Camp Zeist trial. That might be no bad place to start looking for the truth. Honest further investigation is almost bound to embarrass the Zeist verdict, on which the Crown Office’s reputation depends heavily.

The UN’s specially appointed international observer at the Lockerbie trial, Professor Hans Koechler of Vienna, found the verdict against Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi incomprehensible and a travesty of justice.[....]

Listening to the BBC reporting of the matter, it was clear that Megrahi's guilt is not to be questioned, despite the report of the SCCRC which stated that he might heve been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. Rather, this is all about identifying his "co-conspirators".

Duh? It was always contended that he had co-conspirators. And I don't just mean Fhimah. The question we should be asking is, why now? Why did this investigation ever sit on its laurels with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, right back in 1991 or whenever? Even more importantly, when Fhimah was acquitted ("no case to answer", remember?), and it was quite obvious that Megrahi could not possibly have done what he was alleged to have done on his own, why was this new investigation not launched then. In 2001?

The first thing that happened last night was Christine Grahame on TV saying this was all highly convenient, as the "ongoing investigation" meant that her FoI requests could now be denied. And indeed, it does seem as if this is nothing but a ploy to prevent inquiry into the possibility that someone other than Megrahi put that bomb on the plane, by instituting an ongoing enquiry into who may have helped him. By reviving the case in this way, it ensures that official investigation doesn't go anywhere near any alternative explanations, while allowing any other investigations to be blocked.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sinking feeling. Sounds like a lame investigation of the same old crap. Don't even bother investigating the MST-13 paperwork or missing Senegal timer, or the lack of BKA response over Frankfurt Airport's records. Looking for Megrahi's "bosses?" How much deeper will they insist on plunging into this delusion? Why not also look into who really sponsored the MacGuire family and gave them that gelignite chalk? That's worth asking after, isn't it? Surely they didn't act alone! To paraphrase the Conspiracy Files, "the big ones got away." Let's go for it, those Senegal arrestees and Gaddafi himself! Maybe Iran is involved too, paying Libya, there is a world of witnesses and clues to be found. Sanctions this time, or bombs?

Your first link above is broken, even from Google, guess they pulled or moved it. Another similar headline:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ilies-welcome-new-police-inquiry-1809424.html

Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, has been convicted of the attack which the authorities insist was carried out by Libya. But many British families of those who died believe the full truth of the attack has yet to be revealed.

And there are others who feel not even part of the truth was reveled by that conviction. How in the hell do you get eight new accomplices when it took such machinations just to secure a 50% conviction of the first two? New technology, I presume. So let's just elaborate on it, "for the families"^TM.

Sorry for the rant that adds no new information.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It was always contended that he had co-conspirators. And I don't just mean Fhimah. The question we should be asking is, why now? Why did this investigation ever sit on its laurels with the indictments against Megrahi and Fhimah, right back in 1991 or whenever? Even more importantly, when Fhimah was acquitted ("no case to answer", remember?), and it was quite obvious that Megrahi could not possibly have done what he was alleged to have done on his own, why was this new investigation not launched then. In 2001?

Ah! Well, ... ahem. You see, well, ... 2001 was a different year. And, uh... certain limitations, diplomatic something... bureaucracy... inter-agecy feuding?

The first thing that happened last night was Christine Grahame on TV saying this was all highly convenient, as the "ongoing investigation" meant that her FoI requests could now be denied. And indeed, it does seem as if this is nothing but a ploy to prevent inquiry into the possibility that someone other than Megrahi put that bomb on the plane, by instituting an ongoing enquiry into who may have helped him. By reviving the case in this way, it ensures that official investigation doesn't go anywhere near any alternative explanations, while allowing any other investigations to be blocked.

That could well be it. I'm having a hard time visualizing even Mr. Henderson or anyone producing a whole new second novel expanding on the secrets revealed in part one. That's just too much. A ploy to maintain the staus quo with delays and things again put out of range until a few more people get older and tireder, then maybe they can finally scrape the whole thing gracefully off their shoe well out of eyesight. That does sound entirely plausible.

 

[Rolfe]

Link not broken for me.

The official reason for reopening this case now is that Megrahi dropped his appeal so there are now no ongoing legal matters relating to it. It's news to me that ongoing legal proceedings stops the police investigating whether an accused person had accomplices. Nobody ever mentioned this as a problem over the past 17 years when no other suspects were being sought.

They were wittering on about DNA on the radio this morning while I was getting dressed. Yeah right, they'll get meaningful DNA from the dregs of an explosion that happened over 21 years ago, after the evidence has been trawled over for explosives residues and all sorts - not.

Robert Black has a bit more to say about this.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmm, maybe I was too hasty in dismissing the possibility of DNA evidence coming up with something. If the DNA of a suspect were to be found on any of the clothes packed in the bomb suitcase, that would certainly be pretty sensational. I only hope that stuff has been stored sufficiently well that DNA evidence would be preserved and contamination impossible.

Christine Grahame (blogged by Robert Black today)

Ms Grahame has called on Detective Chief [Inspector] Michael Dalgleish who is heading the current review of evidence related to the Lockerbie bombing to explain why materials which it was claimed were packed along with the bomb were only checked for DNA in 2006.

Ms Grahame has also called on the police to confirm that a report dated 18th October 2006 by the Forensic Science Service commissioned on behalf of the Crown Office did find a DNA profile in the remains of an umbrella which the prosecution claimed was one of the items Megrahi had bought in Malta, but that it did not match his DNA.

Rolfe.

 

[JihadJane]

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!

You are implying that state agents planted evidence. You must really hate authority. I bet you hate your dad too.

Furthermore, what about Occam's Razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ?

 

[Rolfe]

I think Occam would have had apoplexy over this one. It seems to be necessary to multiply hypotheses to an absolutely insane degree, and even then some anomalies are left dangling.

Of course we're suggesting agents of the state planted evidence. That's what about 80% of the people who've studied this incident seem to be asserting. Does anybody really think that has never, ever been done? The only question here is, is it a plausible suggestion?

So far, we have a maybe.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You are implying that state agents planted evidence. You must really hate authority. I bet you hate your dad too.

Furthermore, what about Occam's Razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ?

That is a pretty debunker-like statement, in a sense, as has swayed me over. Certainly if a conviction was handed down by Scottish Judges after hearing evidence put together by Scottish police and American FBI, the simplest explanation is that it was a fair and sound verdict.

What's that about explaining ALL the facts? Aw, c'mon!

Okay, that was brief flip. In the news: Scottish authorities announce the investigation is not re-opened, it's just being reviewed as it sits, as has been done beofore to see if it should be officially re-opened. Henderson et al. are seeming keen to do so and go after Megrahi's BOSSES! The US ambassador to the UK stresses the two countries will NOT be getting a "divorce" over the release of Megrahi, as upset as they are he didn't die in writhing agony and loneliness in prison, and especially angry how his wife kids got to hug him one last time. If they had lnown, in fact, the US would have extradited the kiiller to a decent American prison where he'd be sure to die. Professor Robert Black explains why this is nonsense and wonders why the guy would say something so stupid.

And finally, following suggestions by Dr Swire, et al, an investigation is (reportedly) opening - in Malta, of witness Tony Gauci's testimony. This is bound to be interesting one way or another.

A Maltese legal official told The Daily Telegraph: "Tony Gauci is an area where we have to investigate more thoroughly and we are preparing for this.

"There was never enough proof, to be frank, on the circumstances of his evidence and there is pressure coming from many quarters on Malta to move to resolve the issue." (...)

 

[Bobby]

You are implying that state agents planted evidence. You must really hate authority. I bet you hate your dad too.

Furthermore, what about Occam's Razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem ?

Welcome aboard. To my knowledge the conviction of Megrahi essentially boils down to eye-witness testimony that Megrahi was the purchaser of certain items of clothing. The eye witness concerned does not appear credible, or, at least, the manner in which his testimony was presented to the court was biased. It is clear that the defence was not provided all the details of the investigation (for instance they were not told of the break in at Heathrow), which makes it plausible to believe they were also not told that the eye witness had said another person looked more like the purchaser of the clothing than the accused. While this may be a challenge to authority, it's one that has been made on several different occasions wrt the British judicial system (unsafe convictions).