Dialog on Lockerbie theories

[Architect]

But has he said why he thinks that? This is the question Caustic Logic has asked, and one that has not been answered by anyone. I can't see how you can maintain Megrahi did it without postulating a huge conspiracy on the part of a bought-out Maltese airport and airline security operation.

How the blazes did he get the suitcase on the plane? What's Clive Fairweather saying about that?

Rolfe.

As I recall, Clive was HMIP at the time of the trial and, of course, thereafter. I've never actually discussed the case with him, but he said in a piece in the Post (yeah, I know, I'm sorry) that he'd spent a bit of time with him and had mo doubt he'd done it. But that was all. Not exactly an in-depth analysis, I know.

FWIW, remember I'm on the "he didnae dae it" side of the fence.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh and I forgot commandlinegamer – he’s popped into the discussion before and is definitely alright and respectable open-minded. The rest of you, eh… I reserve judgment I suppose. It's true no one is required to take interest in my little "JAQ-off" "history project."

This whole thread was a little sloppy in what exactly I was trying to do, at first. Whether people were meaning to help or not I don't know, but think it came through okay.Apologies I sometimes forgot what I was doing, soliciting counter-argument or questions, and then argued back instead of just taking note. But I've taken note, and can summarize the few responses in categories kind of like this:

1) I don’t care, I don’t wan to think about it, click. This is the ultimate stumper – aside from someone who doesn’t even hear your call or answer the phone, nothing’s more impossible to argue with.

2) Officials already did the work to prove their case. It was proven based on the real evidence, and clearly pointed to Libya. There is no reason to doubt their work.

3) Brainster put it perfectly: "If you have evidence that disproves al Megrahi and Libya's involvement, don't just talk about it on an internet forum. Take it to the authorities, and if they won't do anything about it, take it to a good investigative journalist, or write it up yourself and submit it to one of the major magazines."

4) Megrahi had millions of dollars in a Swiss bank account. Oh, and since we know he’s a terrorist, that’s probably terrorizing money. So that proves he’s a terrorist.

5) (once accepting some valid problems with the evidence and the case against Megrahi) A few problems with the evidence and the case doesn’t automatically prove (insert opponent’s assertion and/or a strawman here).

Themes 1, 2 and 3 were most prevalent, often co-mingling. Point 3 purports to be the most constructive, but also reflects an ironic anti-question stance. "I'll consider your questioning of the answers I was given by 'the authorities' as soon you've proven your solid answer and convinced the same 'authorities' to tell me these new answers. Until it's official, it's just words.

It's almost as if reality itself has no power any longer to lend its weight to words. Either that, or we're hopelessly unable to discern that reality. Seems a depressing and almost Orwellian mindset.

Examples of the kind we didn’t see:

6) Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did, smart guy?

7) They had to be Libyan, because of the MEBO timer sold only to Libya.

8) The bomb came from Malta, which is where Megrahi was on that very day.

9) Tony Gauci identified the guy in a photo lineup, and a real lineup in court.

10) Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!

These were not mentioned, and don't even rquire specialized knowledge to know of. Indicating, again, that those who accept the official court verdict are also the people who know the least about it. Has anyone ELSE noticed this pattern?

11) Anything relevant with a question mark at the end. That's ears with fingers in 'em, folks. Be aware you've got that kind, okay? That' all.

 

[theprestige]

Examples of the kind we didn’t see:

6) Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did, smart guy?

7) They had to be Libyan, because of the MEBO timer sold only to Libya.

8) The bomb came from Malta, which is where Megrahi was on that very day.

9) Tony Gauci identified the guy in a photo lineup, and a real lineup in court.

10) Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!

Well, you're seeing them now. Since you brought them up, I'm curious to see how you address them in your investigation.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, you're seeing them now. Since you brought them up, I'm curious to see how you address them in your investigation.

6) Okay, if Megrahi didn't do it, then who did, smart guy?

God alone knows. I have no idea who killed Jill Dando either. Still didn't make Barry George guilty. (All right, I incline to the Ahmed Jibril/PFLP-GC theory, because sometimes the obvious is actually true. However, that's only opinion, and subject to change if further facts emerge.)

7) They had to be Libyan, because of the MEBO timer sold only to Libya.

Even if we accept that the timers were only sold to Libya (in itself debatable, because Bollier was selling anything to everybody), that was two years previously, and one thing Libya was definitely doing was suppling arms to terrorist groups (including the IRA). Anyone could have got hold of one of these timers.

And that, again, is accepting that the timer fragment wasn't planted in the evidence at a later date, a view held by a fair number of knowledgeable commentators. Personally, I'm agnostic about the timer fragment. It's not as easy to knock holes in the provenance of that as some people think. However, the fact remains that it's surrounded by an inordinate number of anomalies, anomalies that probably should have had it disallowed as evidence regardless.

And finally, even if we decide that the timers were sold only to Libya, and that they didn't re-sell any of them, and that a piece of one was definitely found on 13th January 1989 in Kielder Forest by PC Gilchrist, that would only implicate Libya. It still leaves us struggling for evidence to implicate Megrahi.

8) The bomb came from Malta, which is where Megrahi was on that very day.

Any assertion that the bomb came from Malta relies entirely on the Erac printout, which again has a very peculiar provenance. But again, even if one accepts that Bogomira Erac is entirely on the level (which I think is probable, despite the improbability of the story), the contents of baggage tray 8849 could have been anything, and there are several different possible explanations for its being coded at station 206 at 13:07. It certainly didn't have to have come off KM180.

I have covered the evidence that there was no unaccompanied luggage on KM180 above. Either there was a massive conspiracy on the part of the Maltese airline and airport authorities to fabricate baggage records, a conspiracy that has never been uncovered in 20 years and which none of the many people aware of it has confessed to, or there was no unaccompanied bag on that plane.

ETA: And of course if you bring up the Erac printout, you're into the question of the disappearing baggage records at Frankfurt - a circumstance that rather boggles my mind. There's far more evidence of a conspiracy to cover-up baggage records at Frankfurt than of any shenanigans at Luqa. (I think it's much more likely the bomb suitcase was introduced at Heathrow, that's where the evidence points, but there's certainly reason to suspect something was being covered up at Frankfurt.)

9) Tony Gauci identified the guy in a photo lineup, and a real lineup in court.

http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/VMA%20report%20al%20Megrahi%20vs%20%20HMA%2019-12-2008.pdf?

http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/Professor Steve Clark's report 18 12 08.pdf?

10) Libya admitted responsibility and paid out billions of dollars!

Libya never really admitted responsibility, the wording of the statement was carefully couched to avoid that. The billions of dollars was paid to regain entry to normal world trade and commerce, and end the sanctions that had been imposed on the country. Gadaffi was a pragmatist.

Will that do for starters?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

As I recall, Clive was HMIP at the time of the trial and, of course, thereafter. I've never actually discussed the case with him, but he said in a piece in the Post (yeah, I know, I'm sorry) that he'd spent a bit of time with him and had mo doubt he'd done it. But that was all. Not exactly an in-depth analysis, I know.

FWIW, remember I'm on the "he didnae dae it" side of the fence.

I think I know what you're talking about, I read an article that seems to have been recounting the same opinion. As I recall, Clive (if it was the same thing) said that he'd met Megrahi in prison and judged him to be a cunning, ruthless intelligence operative, fully capable of having blown that plane up. Or words to that effect. Since I'm certain Megrahi didn't confess to him, I don't think he can have had anything more than that.

I think this is falling into the false dichotomy often seen in this context. Believing that Megrahi didn't bomb Pan Am 103 doesn't mean subscribing to the view that he was a peaceful, blameless family man. He was a senior JSO officer. He was travelling on a coded passport. He had a stash of money in a Swiss bank account. He had dealings with a Swiss electronics manufacturer who was into armament components.

I think it's likely this guy was indeed involved in some pretty shady exploits. It's even likely he was involved in one of these exploits on 21st December 1988. It just isn't at all likely that the exploit in question was smuggling a suitcase bomb on to KM180, tagged for New York via Heathrow.

It's true he has never explained what he was actually doing at Luqa that morning. In my view, Gadaffi was prepared to support him (and Fhimah) just as far as the point where that would have had to be revealed, and no further. Libyan lawyers were all over the defence case, and in some areas essentially calling the shots. I think whatever Megrahi was up to that morning was not to be revealed, even at the cost of his being convicted. And then of course Gadaffi provides him with a widescreen plasma TV, and buys a house in a smart Glasgow suburb for his wife and children to live in, and so on. But he doesn't give him permission to explain what he was really doing that morning.

That's the sort of person Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was in 1988, I believe. Someone who might well be judged capable of doing something like Lockerbie. However, that doesn't prove he did it, and doesn't get us anywhere as regards the weight of evidence.

If Clive had studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that Megrahi was guilty, I'd be interested to hear his reasoning. However, it seems (if my recollection is right) that his opinion was based merely on his realisation that Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence operative. Which we already knew, really

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Well, you're seeing them now. Since you brought them up, I'm curious to see how you address them in your investigation.

The answers aren't the problem, as you can see. Not that they're 100% fact, but these don't really cut off our exists if you will. I almost remembered to ETA that I didn't want to have questions smothered with answers here, but just offered and accepted. Still accepting, just ignore answers if they upset you. Which of these do/did you think is the best zinger, before and/or after learning Rolfe's answers?

 

[Rolfe]

Sigh. I think I smell another hasty exit.

I note some noob showed up in the 9/11 section a few days ago claiming that the Twin Towers "fell at free-fall speeds". The thread is already about five pages long. Posters have addressed the points he was making, with actual answers and explanations. Nobody told him to take it to an investigative journalist if he had hard evidence, otherwise shut up and go away.

I was rather surprised a few years ago to find no discusson about Pan Am 103 in the forum at all. I originally (being naturally lazy) hoped to get my information here, in fact I more than half-expected the "conspiracy theories" to have been debunked. However, nary a syllable. I had to go and find out the hard way.

Well, there's no compulsion on anyone to discuss anything they're not interested in. But what really surprises me now is the hostility to any suggestion that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the case, vehemently expressed from a platform of complete and utter ignorance of the evidence. And it's not just one person either, it's qute a few. They mock and they scorn, then when the discussion turns to these pesky facts they have no clue about, they go away never to return.

It's completely bizarre.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I note some noob showed up in the 9/11 section a few days ago claiming that the Twin Towers "fell at free-fall speeds". The thread is already about five pages long. Posters have addressed the points he was making, with actual answers and explanations. Nobody told him to take it to an investigative journalist if he had hard evidence, otherwise shut up and go away.

We could pretend that's because they know we have a chance (factually if not politically). We could also pretend the thread was moved here to encourage people to examine why they so believe the official conspiracy theory. Heck, I'm already pretending I won the lottery and have a well-stocked retirement villa waiting in the south of France.

I was rather surprised a few years ago to find no discusson about Pan Am 103 in the forum at all. I originally (being naturally lazy) hoped to get my information here, in fact I more than half-expected the "conspiracy theories" to have been debunked. However, nary a syllable. I had to go and find out the hard way.

The innocent/ignorant can sometimes have a wisdom those like us lack. Perhaps they somehow know without knowing the facts or the why that this case isn't real but MUST be maintained. Wouldn't that explain the endemic finger-ears situation pretty well?

 

[commandlinegamer]

I originally (being naturally lazy) hoped to get my information here

You and one or two others are actually digging into the material while others comment (like myself) or ignore it. I wouldn't call that laziness.

 

[Rolfe]

We could pretend that's because they know we have a chance (factually if not politically). [....]

Well, it's not a competition. If there is credible evidence that Megrahi did it, it wouldn't bother me. In fact, I'd be fairly relieved, because it would mean we hadn't imprisoned an innocent man.

I just want to know. Not necessarily with absolute certainty, but to a reasonable degree of probability. Where did the bomb go on the plane? Who made it and who put it there? What the hell was going on at Frankfurt (destroying evidence)? Was that timer fragment really part of the bomb, and if so, how does that square with the very early detonation? If Megrahi didn't do it (as seems to be the case), were the investigating authorities simply misled by a couple of coincidences? Or was there deliberate misdirection?

Which of the improbable coincidences were genuine coincidences, and which are real clues? How much of the extraneous conspiracy theorising is based in fact (drug smuggling and CIA officers on the plane and outside interference with evidence in the early days and so on)?

If there's some killer piece of evidence there to show it was Megrahi all along, well fine, there's your answer. I have to say, though, I don't expect it.

It's not a competition though, and nobody "wins".

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

You and one or two others are actually digging into the material while others comment (like myself) or ignore it. I wouldn't call that laziness.

Yeah, but I'm only doing it because there's no easier way to find out. No nice neat Gravy-site explaining away all the holes in the evidence to the sceptic's satisfaction.

Reasonable comment, or ignoring, is fine. What's so bizarre is the attitude that of course Megrahi did it, even though we know nothing about the case, so shut up and go away, twoofer.

Why?

Rolfe.

 

[Ambrosia]

I note some noob showed up in the 9/11 section a few days ago claiming that the Twin Towers "fell at free-fall speeds". The thread is already about five pages long. Posters have addressed the points he was making, with actual answers and explanations. Nobody told him to take it to an investigative journalist if he had hard evidence, otherwise shut up and go away.

I think I can explain why 911 is so popular still and yet Lockerbie meets with little to no discussion.

People post for myriad reasons on forums, but one of the main ones is they like to feel better about themselves, and what better way to feel better about yourself than to put down some random loon on an anonymous forum who spouts nonsense that you know is false, where the hard work is all done already and you can copy/paste others work on the subject, where the overwhelming consensus is that the CTers are nuts so you feel like you belong as one of the crowd and can lump ontop of the latest bandwagon, quote or requote the same old talking points, and feel all superior.

I dont get how this topic, where it looks pretty likely that for once the CT actually looks closer to the truth than the "official story" we arent inundated with other CTers using aspects of Lockerbie and some of the odder coincidences to prop up their own faltering worldview, though I guess I am glad about that.

It might be as simple as the fact that 21 years ago when this happened a good chunk of the posters on these and other forums were not born.

I was shocked when Lockerbie happened, I was glued to TV news for a few days, and for a long time I assumed that the cops got their man. Maybe without having lived through the experience its hard to care about it.

I fully expected there to be a bunch of posters here who were knowledgable enough about the case to point to this and that evidence and prove that yes the cops did get the right man and this is why, I am still a little stunned that a) that wasn't the case and b) almost noone cares enough to even discuss it.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, but I'm only doing it because therre's no easier way to find out. No nice neat Gravy-site explaining away all the holes in the evidence to the sceptic's satisfaction.

Which, of course was probably not all that easy for Gravy to set up. Congratulations, your the Gravy of the Lockerbie Bombing case. Why complain that somebody else didn't do all your leg work for you?

 

[Rolfe]

Which, of course was probably not all that easy for Gravy to set up. Congratulations, your the Gravy of the Lockerbie Bombing case. Why complain that somebody else didn't do all your leg work for you?

Was I complaining?

I've written a lot about this already, in threads here and elsewhere. So have Caustic Logic, Ambrosia, Buncrana and a couple of others.

So go away and read some of it so you can engage in informed discussion, or just go away. What possible enjoyment can you be getting from taking up a position and arguing in a hostile manner on a topic you know bugger-all about?

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

What's so bizarre is the attitude that of course Megrahi did it

To paraphrase Al Gore, it's a convenient truth.

A person is found guilty of a crime so why query it? You cited the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six, IIRC, cases which also involved terrorism; I don't think the majority of people were interested in questioning their guilt once a court had convicted them.

 

[Rolfe]

Possibly not. But neither would the majority of people have been attacking anyone who questioned their guilt as "deluded", without having any knowledge of the basis for the doubts.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

From the OJ Simpson thread.

Right, but again, what is it about the law's opinion that obligates you to share it?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I dont get how this topic, where it looks pretty likely that for once the CT actually looks closer to the truth than the "official story" we arent inundated with other CTers using aspects of Lockerbie and some of the odder coincidences to prop up their own faltering worldview, though I guess I am glad about that.

That was actually my thinking when I came here expecting to find discussion about it. I imagined the 9/11 twoofers would be milking it for all it was worth for its parallels, and the rather more credible claims of cover-up and even LIHOP, but no. They don't do that.

I did search in the Twoofer forums for discussion about Lockerbie, and I was absolutely gobsmacked to find nothing but knowing assertions that Megrahi was really guilty. The main source for this seems to be David Shayler, who is credited with inside knowledge, and who has taken this line. Having heard him propound it in a documentary, he seemed simply to have decided that Giaka was credible after all, and to be delighting in espousing the opposite line from the mainstream journalists. Disbelief in Megrahi's guilt actually being the default position among investigative journalists who have actually looked at it.

I think this is what's going on with the twoofers in general on Lockerbie. They see that doubt over Megrahi's guilt is actually the default position in pretty much all the mainstream journalism that looks into the subject, so they delight in "knowing better" and supporting the conviction.

I fully expected there to be a bunch of posters here who were knowledgable enough about the case to point to this and that evidence and prove that yes the cops did get the right man and this is why, I am still a little stunned that a) that wasn't the case and b) almost noone cares enough to even discuss it.

It's the last that confuses me. Specifically that there's nobody prepared even to try to defend the conviction with reference to the actual evidence. And yet, we have a number of people rabidly defending the conviction while standing in complete ignorance of the actual evidence.

I first got a taste of that when I posted in threads that had been started to complain about the compassionate release. I pointed out that there was a high probability he hadn't actually done what he was convicted of, and most of the US posters turned and rent me.

My working hypothesis is that it's a US pride thing. I think nearly all the scoffers have been American. The US can't have got it wrong, so they have to jump in and support the official line.

I may be being entirely unfair here, it's just my impression. I think in Britain and especially in Scotland we're more used to seeing mainstream articles by credible journalists pointing out that the verdict was a crock of ordure. In the US this isn't something that's had much publicity, so the knee-jerk reaction (with the emphasis on the jerk part) is to leap in and insist that "our side" must be right.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

above, Frum quote, I think has some errors - I don't think Baer worked ON Lockerbie.

You guys know what else is funny, is how the people who would have to have a stroke to not know the evidence - people who ran the investigation and all - their arguments aren't much better. They can cite some specifics, but often strung together in ways that make little sense, and always sanitized of inconvenient details.

Consider Richard Marquise. FBI chief investigator for Lockerbie. He did put up some questions that official story doubters should ask themselves. (from a ltter to the Herald's Lucy Adams)
http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org/node/99

I have followed your articles on Lockerbie with interest before and after we had the chance to speak a year or so ago. You have generally been fair in your reporting but the article entitled “Embarrassment to a nation or an act of compassion” causes me to want to respond.

I certainly have an opinion about the guilt of Mr. Megrahi and Libya and have voiced it many times. That opinion is based on knowledge of the evidence not speculation, hypothesis or rumor which seems prevalent in the UK—both on blogs and in the media.

Most people including those in the media are totally unaware of the facts of the case ...

Too true, and most of these people just beilieve without question what you guys and the Zeist judges decided for them. The correct response here is touché.

... Those who believe he should be released (because they believe he is innocent) should ask more questions—certainly not of the media or the pundits because they have no idea of the facts. They only have their opinions. They should ask why Libyan officials were trying to find MST-13 timers in December 1988.

That's just.. what? Bollier said that, maybe there's other evidence, but that's a good clue it never happened. Maybe it did, but they needed one they clearly had. It was set to blow up over land and be found. Why refresh you behind-the-scenes links? What were hey gonna do with 40 more? What's your point?

It was a senior Libyan official who had ordered the majority of all the Toshiba radios similar to that which carried the bomb. This official also talked in 1986 about putting a bag on a British or American flight from Malta. Ask why?

Those are both news to me. I'm mildly stumped at the moment. Anyone?

Ask why Mr. Megrahi was picked out of a lineup by a Maltese shopkeeper as resembling the man who purchased the clothing contained in the bomb suitcase.

To specifically answer that question, I’d need to closely examine the line-up procedure. Evidence of this type – why exactly did a lineup produce the results it did - is too nuanced and fragile to assess lightly. I haven’t the skills to professionally asses it, nor the primary documentation on methodology. However, in Megrahi’s released-to-internet appeal papers, two highly qualified experts did look at the primary data and found it was slanted towards indicating al Megrahi. Professor Clark’s report noted of the February 1991 photo lineup: “Mr. Megrahi was years older than any of the Middle Eastern individuals in the lineup,” which is essential since gauci’s ID was older than Megrahi, making him the closest fit presented.

SCCRC, 2007 findings of a possible “miscarriage of justice”

Additional evidence, not made available to the defence, which indicates that four days prior to the identification parade at which Mr Gauci picked out the applicant, he saw a photograph of the applicant in a magazine article linking him to the bombing. In the Commission’s view evidence of Mr Gauci’s exposure to this photograph in such close proximity to the parade undermines the reliability of his identification of the applicant at that time and at the trial itself.

So that's another possible answer. He's been steered in the photo line-up, exposed to a photo they know of, and probably fifty TV news stories before pointing again in person in 1999. Wow. Prof. Clark noted on the Camp Zeist lineup:

85. What about the composition of the lineup parade at Camp Zeist, 13 April, 1999? Photographs were taken of 12 individuals who were presumably present to participate in the lineup parade. However, only seven of these individuals were included in the lineup, and it is not clear who was included and who was excluded from the lineup, as there are conflicting accounts from Alistair Duff, who was Mr. Megrahi’s solicitor at the lineup, versus the police report.

86. Even with the incomplete and contradictory documentation of the lineup parade, it is clear that 9 of the 11 fillers were younger than Mr. Megrahi, by an average of 13 years
<snip detailed analysis by filler details, emphasis on filling out the too young end>
By this analysis, there may have been only one plausiblest filler in the lineup, that being #11.

87. There appears to be no photograph to document Mr. Megrahi’s appearance at the lineup parade. Might he have stood out in the lineup because of his clothing or some other aspect of his appearance? This cannot be known without proper photographic documentation.

If that analysis is any good (you could check the reasoning and try to debunk it), Gauci may have been presented with only one filler besides Megrahi to chose from. 50/50 shot then, at least Could YOU point to this man after all this? Yes you could, and you never sold him any clothes on the 7th of December 1988.

It was strange that of all the people in the world, Mr. Megrahi was in Malta the same day the clothing was purchased and was there the same day the bomb left on its fateful journey.

Oh, boy. No, no, sorry... you know darn well what's strange about the day, Dick.
(hint - starts with "of all the days in the subset November 23 and December 7...")

Ask why Mr. Megrahi had opened a “front” business in Zurich, at the premises of the man who had given the Libyan officials the MST-13 timers.

I don't need to know just what exactly that, or the money in his account, or his "coded passport" ID were for. Some kind of servie that involves secrecy. Outlaw regimes framed for crimes they didn't commit might just have a few. I'm not the one trying to connect all these dots into a politicaly-determined picture.

Ask why Mr. Megrahi came to Malta from Tripoli on the evening of December 20, 1988, in a false name and only stayed long enough to get a night’s sleep.

Same. He was busy at something, on the island we have only the weirest flimsiest evidence the bomb ever came from. Only a paper-thin membrane separates damning indictment from great alibi.

Ask why his friend and co-traveler on that date, Mr. Fhimah, who still had possession of his airside access badge as well as a notation in his diary he needed to get “Air Malta taggs,” spoke with him on the early morning of December 21.

No, Mr. Marquise, I'm through JAQing off with you. Any remaining questions will have to be left where they are. You bore me, dude.

- Adam.

ETA: I'm much nicer to forum members, so don't worry

 

[Rolfe]

Theprestige seems to have left, as I rather expected. It's a big learning curve to get up to speed for arguing either side of this case from an informed perspective. You can't really do it in a day or two. It's just a shame that none of these people ever decide to do it at all. They come in, all guns blazing, railing against conspiracy theories and insisting that a court verdict is infallible (unless it's OJ Simpson, or Barry George, or Sally Clark....). They come over rude, aggressive, and insulting.

Then they go away. None of them ever comes back with any facts.

Rolfe.