It seems impossible to provide a plausible way for Megrahi, or anyone for that matter, to have introduced an unaccompanied bag at Luqa Airport on Dec 21 1988. Both the airport and the airline Air Malta would appear to have provided, and to those with expert knowledge on how these airline and baggage systems operate, irrefutable documentation showing it was virtually impossible for a bag to be inserted, and indeed the records of KM180 completely support this conclusion in respect of their passenger and baggage reconciliation on that day. Given this, if there are no arguments to what has been probed and concluded on these threads, then that puts Megrahi, although not necessarily Libya, out of the frame altogether in relation to the charges alleged by the US and UK authorities for his part in the bombing of flight 103.
There is some evidence that unaccompanied bag(s) were loaded onto PanAm 103a in Frankfurt, possible through various means, although it appears from the arguments of the prosecution that, the rouge bag that appears at the station assigned to collect baggage from the Malta flight, had to be the bomb bag. As has been demonstrated on here, that is simply not the case.
The distinct, and lets be honest, questionable lack of official records for Frankfurt handling of baggage, by virtue leaves me highly suspicious of the Erac printout, the reasons for it's initial retainment, and it's subsequently major significance in somehow linking origination of the bomb with the Air Malta flight despite the far more incontrovertible evidence that was made available from the very beginning by Air Malta and Luqa airport authorities. The fact that if indeed the bomb suitcase was introduced either from the KM180 flight, or inserted at the coding station where the baggage arrived from Malta, also ignores the security measures that bag would need to negotiate through the Frankfurt system, where although discrepancies are found in their baggage reconciliation with passengers, their baggage system operators did x-ray all baggage loaded onto PA103a. In addition, the warnings that had been issued and the exposing of the PLFP cell just outside Frankfurt and their Toshiba bombs containing barometric timers, would surely have resulted in a step-up in security around German Airports, especially the baggage areas with the x-ray examiners forewarned about the possible Toshiba Radio disguise.
Perhaps, as has been suggested by a few, there were covert activities in operation at Frankfurt involving 'controlled drug deliveries' and therefore disclosure of all relevant records could have exposed illegal surreptitious operations which could be highly damaging to the US, UK and German governments. To expect that these kinds of covert activities are not operated at State level is unrealistic. The theory of the 'drugs for hostages' deals and the integral part played by Frankfurt and Heathrow put forward by Aviv, Coleman and Francovich is one which carries immeasurable rewards, but clearly also inherently very grave risks for all those involved. I would not completely rule out the possibility of ingestion of the suitcase containing the bomb at Frankfurt, but on the balance of what is known, I tend to think Heathrow the more likely.
The poor security and baggage reconciliation at Heathrow was ably shown by the story given to the court by Bedford and Kamboj, the baggage handlers at Heathrow loading luggage onto 103. Despite Bedfords claim of two suitcases, unknown to him, were placed in the container from which the bomb exploded, and that had been left unguarded at the PanAm gate, the judges then provided novel interpretations of how the bags Bedford viewed could not be the bomb simply because of extraneous positioning claims, when the most patent evidence that a rogue samsonite suitcase had been introduced at Heathrow was compelling.
The break-in at Heathrow, at the PanAm gate no-less, reported so soon after it occurred by Ray Manley, seems to have been simply cast aside by the police who recorded it. This despite a PanAm plane being blown out of the sky later that same day. Even more disturbingly, it seems there was a concerted effort to conceal this breach of security until it finally became known only at the first appeal by Megrahi in 2002. Why on earth would information like that be suppressed? It becomes even more perturbing given what we now know of the, in comparison, scant evidence pertaining to security at Luqa and with Air Malta. Great effort has seemingly been made to either conceal or divert any attention away from the more substantial and significant areas of evidence which exist at Heathrow and Frankfurt in favour of the more fanciful and indeed preposterous notions as laid out by the prosecution case that Luqa Airport, and therefore Megrahi, were instrumental in the bombing of flight 103.
Perhaps, if there was a 'controlled delivery' in operation incorporating the DEA (under the auspices of the CIA), the German BKA and British MI6 on 21 dec, using Frankfurt and Heathrow Airport, then we have good reason for those agencies to steer the investigation away from those areas. Better still, the loss of all records and any evidence which does come to light is either ignored, or if possible must point the investigators in another direction entirely? Perhaps the first assumption made was that the attack on 103 had utilised the controlled delivery to insert a bomb? My own thoughts have drifted towards two operations (the drug sting and the attack on 103) as entirely separate. The covert operation happening from Frankfurt, while the bomb suitcase was inserted at Heathrow. Perhaps with the knowledge of a covert drug operation, any group wanting to bring down an Airline, would know to inflict their attack during this operation would present any government or investigators with a real dilemma?
The loss of documentation from Frankfurt obscures any real conclusive evidence of anything untoward, or legitimate, taking place at that airport, while the suppression of the break-in and the apparent gaping holes in security at Heathrow together with the Bedford suitcase are just quietly (hopefully) and discreetly ignored as though not noteworthy far less worth further investigation? Given the intelligence on Khreesat's devices, and the public knowledge that the BKA had simply released the 'caught red-handed' bomb-maker Khreesat back to Jordan, it would be imperative that any evidence discovered and any investigation instigated, should not be allowed to dig too far into this - for it would be absolutely obvious to everyone that this would be the most likely course of inquiry and Khreesat the clear suspect - and would be the first focus of any investigation.
I have a VHS copy of the Maltese Double Cross taken from it's one and only public showing on UK's channel 4 in 1995. I really should endeavour to have this transferred and uploaded, if not for making a slightly better copy available online, then for the 'Lockerbie Debate' that was broadcast immediately after the film, which I also recorded. The discussion, primarily focussing on the film's assertions, included Allan Francovich, Jim Swire, Jim Duggan (representing US families), David Leppard (Sunday Times) and Oliver 'Buck' Revell who headed the FBI investigation prior to Richard Marquise. The discussion made for fascinating viewing reaching a dramatic point when Jim Swire probed Oliver Revell on the fact his son had been booked on Pan Am 103 only to change and fly home on a different date. Swire asked quite bluntly if this had been as a result of the warnings that were made known to many US diplomats, or whether Revell had any prior knowledge of a possible attack on 103. Revell confirmed the change by his son but that this was simply due to a change in his son's work commitments with the US military in Germany and had no connection to any warnings.
All aspects of the Lockerbie disaster deserve close attention, and there are some aspects which deserve the particular attention of Americans and the British such as those examined on here. These will not be addressed by people and press elsewhere. These topics, the ones that are close to home - literally in our backyard - that have been most abysmally ignored or covered up by the US and UK media. There are a few lone voices on both sides of the Atlantic, who are either dismissed as some sort of nutty CT's, or who's cries of foul play by the government slowly fade away isolated in a lonely dark corner. As Flora Swire's fiancé, Hart Lidov said in his highly critical article written for the Columbia Journalism Review on the tenth anniversary of the disaster, "it is unrealistic to suppose that they (those who ordered the bombing) will ever be held accountable. Khomeni, Mohtashemi, Assad, and Khaddaffi did not take an oath of office to protect us - officials of the US government did."
He continued, "In the case of Lockerbie there are innumerable theories, no indisputable proof that any one is correct, and no reason to assume that situation will change at any specific time in the future. Thus any discussion that is predicated on knowing who precisely carried out the bombing is essentially a dead end. The answer may be known by the intelligence services of any of several countries, but it may not be. If it is, there is no reason to expect that it will be divulged except as it suits other political purposes in what may be a very long fullness of time. In the absence of this information are there questions that the press could have addressed - yes, lots of them. Who had an interest in seeing the Pan Am 103 bombing succeed? What do the few facts have become public since Dec. 21 1988 add up to? Did the US security services take appropriate actions in light of what was known? What can be inferred was known based on actions - as opposed to public statements about “what was known”? None of these questions have been addressed by American journalists, or if they have it is in the manner of Michael Wines of the NY Times who like a weathercock points in which ever direction the State Department is blowing, or Steve Emerson, whose continued relationship with Oliver Revell (at least as late as Emerson's WSJ article “Stop Aid and Comfort for Patrons of Terror” 8/5/96) make his reporting of a story in which Revell may in fact be a central culprit, unreliable."
In short, Lidov's claim was not only one of culpability on the part of the US security services, but specifically of Revell and the grave assertion of complicity in bombing. Indeed, Revell so incensed by the allegations made by Lidov, he made application to the US court claiming defamation of character, which was ultimately lost. However, given it's sensitive nature, and time that has elapsed, the full article is very hard to track down, and even although I do have a copy, I don't feel it would be in the best interests of the forum for me to post it in full. Anyone wishing to read the full article, pm me and I will oblige.
