Scottish Parliament e-Petition 417

[Buncrana]

For what my tuppence might be worth, I had considered that personal opinions, that is whether you regard Megrahi's guilt as "wrong", are separated by the irrefutable support, and judicial opinion, adhered and maintained by JFM, that the conviction may be "unsafe" as precisely that concluded by the SCCRC decision in 2007.

In this respect, Dr Swire is merely reiterating that conclusion. His own personal opinion may differ from simply "unsafe". That however, is simply my opinion, and I could well be wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

Ahhh.... more hand waving. HA! So, are you saying he was unprepared? Or are you just making excuses for him? My bet would be the latter. Considering how hard and long he has worked for this, I find it very difficult to believe that he wouldn't have chosen his words more succinctly. Add to that, he's in front of a parliamentary committee. Sorry but "the dog ate my homework" excuse isn't flying in my book.
It's more than semantics. He said it is NOT our position that... the verdict was wrong.

If I seem to be handwaving, it's because I don't understand what your point is. It is the formal position of the JFM committee that the Zeist verdict was unsafe. This was what Jim Swire was trying to convey, as far as I could see, and I think he conveyed it adequately. You think his words might have been better chosen? So what?

And thank you for the offer, but I'd rather not converse with Swire, lest he faint. Or perhaps, considering the semantics debate, the correct word should be feint.

Well, if you don't want to ask him what he meant, then I think you should drop it. Personally, I don't even see what your problem is with these words.

YOU ask him. You're the new secretary of the JFM committee, aren't you? Isn't it the role of secretary to document what is / was said in meetings? Pitty you weren't there.

I don't have to ask him anything. I don't have a problem with the choice of words. He was stating the formal position of JFM, and he stated it correctly.

LOL! Thank you for pointing that out. So it's okay for Robert Black, a lawyer, solicitor, whatever; one whom should be well versed in facts, and evidence to be "out" on Megrahi's age, and alleged date of purchase, but not Gauci, a mere shopkeeper, attempting to recall something that happened more than a decade prior?

I don't see the comparison. Prof. Black (now retired, who was an advocate, a QC actually, and an academic, and a judge (sheriff) for a little while) incorrectly remembered Megrahi's actual age by two years. (In Paul Foot's book, he says Megrahi was 37 in 1988. Prof Black said 38. Megrahi's date of birth is known, 1st April 1952, so he was actually 36 at the time in question.)

So what? Gauci was estimating the age of the person he sold the clothes to. He said, about 50. He maintained this estimate quite consistently throughout many statements. When he "identified" Abu Talb, who was also in his 30s, he said, that could be the man if he was older by about 20 years. When he was first shown Megrahi's picture he said much the same thing. Too young.

If we knew for a fact that either Abu Talb or Megrahi had bought the clothes, we would be forced to concede that Tony's estimate had been wrong. But we don't know that at all. You seem to be saying you have some divine revelation declaring Megrahi was really the purchaser, therefore Gauci was "out" in all the relevant facts. Sorry, we have no such divine revelation. All we have to go on to identify the purchaser is what Gauci said, and what he said doesn't add up to Abdelbaset al-Megrahi. (Or Abu Talb, I have to say.)

Add to that, Black's concocted story about it "pouring" on the date of clothing purchase,

Well done, you're quite right. Prof. Black overstated the amount of rain. However, "concocted" is taking it a bit far. Tony Gauci described light rain when the customer was leaving the shop. Joseph Mifsud described light rain at that time on 23rd November, matching Gauci's recollection almost perfectly.

In contrast Joseph Mifsud stated that there was no record of any rain at all on 7th December, that he was 90% sure there was in fact no rain at all, and that if there had been any, it would merely have been a few drops which would not have wet the ground.

Prof Black's point was that the rain on the day of purchase was heavy enough that the customer decided to buy an umbrella. Indeed he over-stated the amount of rain, but that doesn't detract from the actual EVIDENCE that the meteorological records for 23rd November match Tony's description of the weather, and those for 7th December don't.

and the fact that he had to correct himself for stating Megrahi's name as the person who was (according to Black) running in the pouring rain with the umbrella to the taxi. What a load of crap.

So what do you conclude from that? It is alleged it was Megrahi who did this. You think Prof. Black actually agrees with that or something?

So you're keen on nit-picking people's public pronouncements on the case, and pulling them up on factual errors, however trivial. Would you like to have a go at Frank Duggan's performances in that department? Because I have to say, I don't think I've ever heard him get a fact right! And not just trivial things like being a couple of years out on someone's age, but great big honking enormous goof-ups, which actually aren't goof-ups, they're pure lies in the hope and expectation that he won't be called on them and maybe his misinformation will enter the public consciousness.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

Wow sorry I missed that. Good to know just what was cited as setting it off.

In retrospect, I feel dumb even responding to this line before understanding what the point of it was.

And on the "unsafe" terminology, personally, I don't fully like it. Clearly the conviction is unsafe in the sense that it shouldn't walk the streets alone after dark. But so long as it stays inside the castle with all the guards on duty and loyal, it has been and remains pretty darn secure.

 

[Rolfe]

For what my tuppence might be worth, I had considered that personal opinions, that is whether you regard Megrahi's guilt as "wrong", are separated by the irrefutable support, and judicial opinion, adhered and maintained by JFM, that the conviction may be "unsafe" as precisely that concluded by the SCCRC decision in 2007.

In this respect, Dr Swire is merely reiterating that conclusion. His own personal opinion may differ from simply "unsafe". That however, is simply my opinion, and I could well be wrong.

JFM is quite explicit in declaring that the position of the organisation is that the conviction is unsafe. That is entirely proper, because whatever one's personal opinion, any campaign must be to have the verdict re-examined - not to have a voice from on high overturn it without further deliberation.

JFM is also quite explicit in acknowledging that individual members may have their own opinions on the matter, including opinions about who actually carried out the atrocity, and that they are entirely at liberty to express these so long as they do not do so in the name of JFM.

As Jim Swire was speaking for JFM at that point, he was constrained from saying that he believes Megrahi to be innocent, and obliged to put the organisation's position forward, which is that the verdict needs to be re-examined.

Having heard what various JFM committee members have to say about their personal opinions, I hear a pretty fair unanimity in the belief that Megrahi is innocent. I don't recall hearing Father Keegans or Iain McKie say a great deal on the subject, but all the others have at various times expressed the belief that the evidence indicates he had nothing to do with the atrocity.

Theoretically, one might conceive of the possibility that he might be shown to have been involved, but it would require completely new and fresh evidence of involvement that we simply don't have at the moment, and would require consideration of the fact that he appears to have been a thousand miles away when the bomb was introduced into the plane's baggage, doing something else entirely.

You could say the same about absolutely anyone in Europe, the Middle East or North Africa with an appropriate background, and indeed Megrahi's known background is pretty innocuous compared to the mayhem and murder most of the other suspects are known to have been involved in.

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

If I seem to be handwaving, it's because I don't understand what your point is. It is the formal position of the JFM committee that the Zeist verdict was unsafe. This was what Jim Swire was trying to convey, as far as I could see, and I think he conveyed it adequately. You think his words might have been better chosen? So what?

My point is, if Jim Swire and the formal position of the JFM committee is that the verdict was unsafe, why did Swire say that is NOT their position.

Obviously this is heading into the pounding rocks against head venue. think I've made my point, you don't get it, or refuse to acknowledge it.

~ Bunntamas

 

[Rolfe]

Jim Swire did not at any point say that the position of JFM is that the verdict is safe. (Or is not that the verdict is unsafe, except I'm getting all fankled up in double negatives here.)

You're dead right I'm not getting it, because you're not making any sense.

If you have an actual point to make, perhaps you could clarify it.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

My point is, if Jim Swire and the formal position of the JFM committee is that the verdict was unsafe, why did Swire say that is NOT their position.

Obviously this is heading into the pounding rocks against head venue. think I've made my point, you don't get it, or refuse to acknowledge it.

~ Bunntamas

But beyond that, no head pounding for me. Best of luck.

 

[pete2]

In response to an objection (at the petition hearing) that to hold an inquiry would be tantamount to the government setting itself up against the judiciary, Professor Black replied:

The Scottish government cannot deny that there is domestic and international concern about this particular verdict of a Scottish court. We are not asking the Scottish government to say, "We think this verdict was wrong," and to do something about it; we are asking them to ... set up an inquiry which will investigate these concerns. They are in no way by so doing, in any way coming into conflict with the Scottish courts. I mean, one of the principal functions of Government is to maintain the integrity of the justice system, and that is what we are asking this government to do...

Dr Swire's remark seems to tally with this position.

 

[Rolfe]

Hi Pete! Don't leave it so long before your third post!

You're quite right, that's a good illustration. I haven't a clue what point Bunntamas is trying to make, to be perfectly honest. But nothing Jim Swire said was at all out of turn that I can see.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

On a number of occasions I've stated that if I believed it was likely Megrahi bought these clothes, I would agree he was indeed involved in the Lockerbie atrocity.

On my reading of the evidence the clothes purchase did take place as Tony Gauci described, and these clothes did fetch up in the suitcase packed round the bomb. I don't see it as at all likely that the clothes purchaser was some uninvolved innocent, and in particular if the clothes purchaser was a Libyan intelligence agent, then no, not likely. (That last part was in fact the reasoning of the court.)

So, persuade me that Megrahi bought the clothes, and I'll agree with you that his conviction was justified. I've said this on a number of occasions.

Bunntamas, if you actually think Megrahi did buy those clothes, would you care to show your working on that one. I've shown my working as regards why I'm entirely certain he didn't buy the clothes, and it's never been challenged. Wouldn't it be better to post some counter-points to that, than to make random comments about Jim Swire's precise choice of wording, the point of which I have to say completely escapes me?

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

On a number of occasions I've stated that if I believed it was likely Megrahi bought these clothes, I would agree he was indeed involved in the Lockerbie atrocity.

Wow. I've not been a JREF member for all that long, so I haven't read all of your posts prior to joining. Nevertheless, thanks for reiterrating, and putting that out there again.

On my reading of the evidence the clothes purchase did take place as Tony Gauci described, and these clothes did fetch up in the suitcase packed round the bomb. I don't see it as at all likely that the clothes purchaser was some uninvolved innocent, and in particular if the clothes purchaser was a Libyan intelligence agent, then no, not likely. (That last part was in fact the reasoning of the court.)

Okay. I've PM'd you about my personal time limitations, but I'll do what I can to comment when I am able. However, please note, I also have previously commented on my lack of patience with rehashing stuff that has been rehashed over and over. But you say this topic has never been explored here, so considering that, I'll try to be as patient as possible and engage in discussion.

With that in mind, I have a couple of requests: Please, let's keep the tone of comments on a collegial level. The minute this discussion gets nasty, I promise you, I will stop commenting on this topic and (per your recommendations) report rule violations.

And as regards comments (for now) can we not go sideways with accusations of alleged witness payment, at least from the start of the discussion?

If you agree to that, then I'm up for discussion.

So, to get the ball rolling, from what I've seen, you have a problem with Gauci's identification of the clothes buyer. How 'bout we start there?

Here's a question / proposition to ponder: Think about the last time you visited a business establishment with which you have no relationship, and don't know the proprietor. You purchased a good number of things, and the proprietor helped you ambulate said purchases to your taxi. If you were asked to describe the proprietor's height, weight, physical description in detail, a decade or more later, how do you think you would do with said description, as regards accuracy, whist sitting in front of government officials from numerous international venues, and / or whilst on the witness stand during an international trial for the murder of 270 innocents?

You've agreed that Robert Black had a difficult time describing events (in a "downpour" that never occurred) about the clothing purchased. The testimoy of Gauci is well documented in the trascripts. Black has been deeply involved in this case from the beginning. And yet he cannot accurately describe the events as testified / recorded by Gauci, et. al. to the Parliamentary committee, whilst representing his own committee to whom he is also allegedly deeply committed. You not that Black is retired. All the more reason he might have had a great deal of time to prepare for the parliamentary hearing and be (at least) adequately prepared, as opposed to, yes, concocting stories / lies, in his presentation, in the (seeming) hope that the parliamentary committee would listen. Frankly, I find this a pathetic, disgrace to the people he is allegedly representing.

In my opinon, Gauci did a very good job of describing the purchaser, more than a decade after the events, unlike Black, who was unable to describe them after being deeply involved with the details of the case for 22+ years, describing himself as the "architect of the Lockerbie trial", illegally traveling to Libya and violating sanctions to meet with Ghadaffi to get Libya to hand over Megrahi and Fimah for trial, and posting every article he can find on his blog daily. I can only imagine what other blather he has been spreading to the Scots over the time he has been "working" for the Justice For Megrahi campaign and prior, as well as going forward.


~Bunntamas

 

[Caustic Logic]

Wow. I've not been a JREF member for all that long, so I haven't read all of your posts prior to joining. Nevertheless, thanks for reiterrating, and putting that out there again.

I'd like to mostly echo that sentiment. It's just such a hypothetical, but I'm trying, and...
Okay, if I were actually convinced Megrahi did buy those clothes on 7 December, I'd have to say their presence in the bomb bag would have me re-thinking an awful lot of other stuff. Most definitely.

Sure, sure, you might think I can't be convinced and so on, and maybe that's so. But again, there are others around. Ever do a Google search for Lockerbie issues we discuss here? These threads come up quite high. They're being read by many people. So you should take up the challenge.

Okay. I've PM'd you about my personal time limitations, but I'll do what I can to comment when I am able. However, please note, I also have previously commented on my lack of patience with rehashing stuff that has been rehashed over and over. But you say this topic has never been explored here, so considering that, I'll try to be as patient as possible and engage in discussion.

Yeah, it looks arguably like a cop-out when you decline on those grounds. Just FYI, appearances being deceiving and such, but again, just another reason to actually take this challenge. It shouldn't take very much time, really, if you just cut straight to the best primary evidence, which we all have and can follow along. It's the scholarly way.

And even if you were personally involved in all that previous talk, what harm could one more time really do?

Best way to convince me and perhaps Rolfe, is to "make it rain" for me on 7 December (not a downpour I agree, but enough to buy an umbrella over, rather than something shy of "Trace Rainfall," which tops out at 0.5 mm and bottoms out I know not where), explain the Christmas decorations being absent in his first tellings, and what Tony really meant about the buyer's height and age, when he's said both "six feet or more" and "under six feet," both around 50 and "(well) under 60."

So - 3 Things for me are the biggest (but not only) stumpers - the rainfall, the lack of Christmas lights in his account, and the height and age discrepancy. And no rush of course. Only when you've got the time and the inspiration.

On you other conditions, since I'm a forum member here as well, I'll just let you know where I stand on each.

With that in mind, I have a couple of requests: Please, let's keep the tone of comments on a collegial level. The minute this discussion gets nasty, I promise you, I will stop commenting on this topic and (per your recommendations) report rule violations.

Collegial here being, apparently, the opposite of Nasty. I do apologize if anything I've added here is percieved as nasty. That's happened before when I didn't intend it (not that I haven't at times intended it). I can certainly agree to avoid being nasty though from here on, and I'll double-check my tone for snark even before hitting submit.

Really, I don't have a lot of time to comment anyway. But I'll follow with as open a mind as I can muster over here in crazy cuckoo land.

And as regards comments (for now) can we not go sideways with accusations of alleged witness payment, at least from the start of the discussion?

Personally, I concur. Paid or not, it's what he said at all the different times that matters.

If you agree to that, then I'm up for discussion.

It seems you've even started it up-front in good faith. I'll actually read that and otherwise just step aside and try not to muck things up. You've got my respect then for taking some time with this, and I look forward to the specific stuff when you've got some more to spare.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Okay, sorry... To untangle a point from above on the weather specifics:

What I have for 7 Dec. is this, Silema and Luqa airport highlighted. It's not a detailed hour-by-hour tally, but all-day totals. TR at the airport, trace rainfall, nothing at all in Silema, daiily total, or at least not enough to measure as TR.

If I'm not mistaken, Maj. Mifsud explained that "trace" means readings below 0.5 mm of rainfall. I don't know what the lower threshold is. Higher numbers are recorded as their own numbers.

On 23 November there was no downpour recorded for Silema. As I recall, (no time to go back and double-check) there was 0.6mm of rain. I think that however is an hourly, not daily tally, and for the hour of the purchase, if it were that day.

So, we have no problem with an hour's rain of 0.6mm, falling just wherever it does within that hour, could make a guy want to buy an umbrella.

What we don't know is the lowest threshold of TR is. If you could show that it only covered say 0.4 to 0.499, then up to 0.4 could fall on Silema at around 7 pm and still not register. And if 0.6 could do the trick for us, 0.4 might, and 7 December could be the day.

I know that's specialized knowledge, but on the off-chance you do know that, maybe from one of the many previous goings-over....

And for that matter we don't have a scientific criteria for just when someone decides they need an umbrella. It is highly subjective, but I think it's reasonable that some rain would be a good cause. How much? Not enough I think, even hypothetically. Not when the chart says, in effect, not even a trace, all day and almost island-wide.

 

[Rolfe]

I have a suggestion. There is a thread in the CT forum called "Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper". It's not ultra-relevant because nobody in the thread so far has seriously tried to argue that Megrahi was actually the clothes purchaser. Nevertheless it's probably the right place for the discussion, keep it all in the same place and all that.

Start from here.

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

Guess things aren't turning out as you had hoped. Must be the rain. Better buy an umbrella. Heard Pr. Black has a good "deal" for purchases on Malta. Maybe you could even "get off" with a Scottish government discount. But then again, there's that UK thing....HA!
~B.

 

[Bunntamas]

Hmmmmm.... Silence speaks volumes.
Did somebody maybe get a little scolding from the mods?
Or are you off waiting at the bedside of Megrahi for his last guilty words?
Or are you off recording the next "Simpsons" like cartoon about the rehashing of the trial?
The silence is quite telling.

 

[commandlinegamer]

??

 

[Matthew Best]

I'm guessing it's not a coincidence that both of those were posted at around 3:30am - perhaps someone has been "partying" a bit hard this week?

 

[Architect]

I think so, yes.

 

[funk de fino]

Hmmmmm.... Silence speaks volumes.
Did somebody maybe get a little scolding from the mods?
Or are you off waiting at the bedside of Megrahi for his last guilty words?
Or are you off recording the next "Simpsons" like cartoon about the rehashing of the trial?
The silence is quite telling.

No silence from the moron senators unfortunately.