Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Rolfe]

Tony Gauci's questionable identification of Abdelbaset al Megrahi as the person who purchased the assortment of clothes that were later found scorched and blast-damaged in the Scottish countryside was a major part of Megrahi's grounds for appeal (appeal abandoned when he was granted compassionate release). However, that's the tip of the iceberg.

Some of Gauci's statements have gone missing. When were the missing statements taken? Some interviews between him and police officers were never minuted or recorded. What was being talked about?

It's becoming clear not only that Gauci and his brother Paul were given a great deal of money after the court case ($3 million between them), but they indicated beforehand that they were interested in receiving money and were probably promised money. In Paul's case, the money wasn't just for his part in establishing the date of the purchase, but for keeping his brother up to the mark.

Gauci changed his statement a number of times - most notably regarding what the mystery shopper bought, but also about other details. He seems to have been anxious to tell the policemen what they wanted to hear.

He appears never to have positively identified Megrahi, only to have said he resembled the purchaser. I'm sure I read somewhere that even his "dock identification" in court had to be prompted. (One of the policemen said that by then, so many pictures of the two accused had been circulated, he could probably have picked Megrahi out of a lineup himself, and he'd never set eyes on the guy.) Most notably, bear in mind that police mugshots and passport photos only show head and shoulders. They don't show height and build. Gauci's original description was of a man taller and more heavily built than Megrahi, not to mention older. And Tony Gauci sells clothes for a living.

There is a completely separate account by another witness (David Wright), never heard in court, of either the same transaction or an extremely similar one, however there were said to be two purchasers and a number of other differences from Gauci's description. How does this influence our view of the matter?

Reports on the identification evidence and its reliability are available at
http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/VMA report al Megrahi vs HMA 19-12-2008.pdf?
http://www.megrahimystory.net/downloads/Professor Steve Clark's report 18 12 08.pdf?
The court judgement is also an important resource
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/lockerbie/docs/lockerbiejudgement.pdf

OK, now for the CT part.

I have extreme difficulty contemplating the idea that these clothes weren't purchased by one of the terrorist gang more or less as described. However, look at it from the other end. It's lunacy!!

If you were a terrorist mastermind planning an attack like Pan Am 103, and you wanted to fill the suitcase you'd picked out for your bomb radio-cassette with clothes. Stop the radio rattling around, make it look more convincing on an x-ray, that sort of thing. Where would you get them?

• Collect together surplus stuff you and the rest of the gang happen to have lying around the house? Nah, you never know, might still be traced to us even if it was bought years ago.
• Go rooting round skips and landfill sites? Yuk! And maybe someone will spot this suspicious behaviour. And I want the thing to look convincing on a casual hand search, so no rags please.
• Go to a large branch of a big anonymous department store in a big cosmopolitan city, at a busy time, and pay cash? Yup, that'll probably work.
• Go to a charity shop selling decent second-hand clothes, in a big cosmopolitan city, at a busy time, and pay cash? That'll work even better.
• Go to a small family business in a tourist resort out of season, at a quiet time when you're the only customer, and are served by the owner's son? Are you putting me on?
• And by the way, I've decided that the same person will buy the clothes and put the bag on the plane, and these two actions will take place only three miles apart. Are you insane?
• Oh, and I've decided to set my really, really versatile timer so that it goes off only an hour after the scheduled departure time of the plane, so there's a fair chance it will explode over land, or even while still on the tarmac. But I'm not going to remove any of the labels from the clothes.

OK, the conclusions in the "unaccompanied bag from Malta" thread knock the penultimate point on the head. If the plan was to put the bag on at Frankfurt or Heathrow, then maybe Malta was a really freaky, unlikely place to buy the clothes. But Mary's House? Don't they have C&A in Valetta? Oxfam? The Red Cross?

What the hell is going on here?

Rolfe.

 

[Eddie Dane]

That does seem rather incompetent.

Does the Libyan secret service work with temps?

 

[Rolfe]

I think "did the Libyan secret service actually have anything to do with this?" is probably the first question.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Regarding the Libyan theory. I missed a bit. Here's what Megrahi is supposed to have done.

• Both bought the clothes and put the bomb on the plane himself (with no apparent attempt at disguise)
• Did these things only three miles apart
• Did these things only two weeks apart
• Bought the clothes in a type of shop where purchasers are more likely to be recognised and remembered
• Set the timer so that the explosion had a fair chance of happening over land, or even on the tarmac
• Didn't bother to remove the labels from the clothes (including "Made in Malta" ones)

Is is possible to lay a more obvious trail if you try?

Of course, if it wasn't actually Megrahi who bought the clothes (as seems likely), and the bomb wasn't put on the plane at Luqa (as seems almost unargable), then the first three points go away. Nevertheless, the second three points remain, no matter who did it or where the bomb was introduced. This seems very strange behaviour to me.

As an aside, given the amount of clothes said to have been in the bomb suitcase, which was apparently a normal size, it's odd how little seems to have been in the case. OK, the radio-cassette player in its box would have taken up some space, and there was an umbrella and a tweed jacket which are quite bulky, but it seems to me there was barely enough stuff to stop the box rattling around.

Maybe there was more stuff that was never recovered. Sure. But then, how do you explain that everything the cops identified as being in the suitcase was confirmed as being sold by Gauci, and everything Gauci says he sold, was found scorched (I think)?

It's awfully convenient. [/twoofer]

Rolfe.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I have never looked into the case, to be honest.

But I'd point out that the great train robbery of the sixties was very well organised and executed.
And then everybody got arrested because one of the gang members had rented the "safe house" where they split the loot in his own name.

And this case, the bomber could have assumed that the clothes would be destroyed in the explosion. So maybe he/them was just careless and stupid with this particular detail.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Eddie Dane, you stepped up. Thanks for the thoughts. Your sloppiness theory is about what the prosecution/investigation surmised, AFAIK, and you put it at least as well as they did.

Rolfe, I just felt compelled to comment on the occasion of thread 4 but I'm really too tired to offer much tonight/this morning. But there's a lot of thoughts related to the Gaucis. You did point out how using this store so close o the bombing data when it would likely be an over-land explosion, would be an odd choice for anyone, Libyan or not. And every source I've seen so far agrees the clothes were bought at Mary's house, prob. on Nov 23(IIRC). However, do we know that's really where they were bought?

And also, it's possible the clothes were planted. Just to mention. So that's two side-possibilities - plants or different store. but otherwise, it's about as you laid out above. Plenty troublesome story.

 

[Eddie Dane]

In the OP it is mentioned that there are indications that the witnesses were paid for their testimony.

While I would find that inexcusable (obviously), It is a theory that may have some merit.

As I said before, I have not looked into the case recently but I do remember the general (and my) emotional reaction to the bombing. It was an outrageous act of mass murder.

So, the pressure on the court to covict must have been enormous.

I'd be open to the suggestion that there was a politically motivated sentence.

Libya admits and gets re-admitted to the world community, the court get's its conviction, the population gets justice (or they think so), the convict is the fall guy but is handled with great lenience when he gets terminally ill.

In that, I could see the contours of political deal-making. But again, I don't know how strong the evidence was or if the man confessed.

 

[Rolfe]

There's a huge learning curve to figure out even approximately what the issues are here.

There is most certainly a strong suspicion of politically-motivated targeting of suspects, with allegations that much stronger circumstantial evidence against a completely separate group of terrorists was ignored because it wasn't politically expedient to go after them.

Megrahi has strenuously protested his innocence from the start, and has never wavered in this. There were huge problems with the original trial, which can be appreciated by looking at the reports published by the official UN observer to the trial.

http://i-p-o.org/lockerbie-report.htm
http://i-p-o.org/koechler-lockerbie-appeal_report.htm

I don't think, however, that doubts over the conviction had anything to do with the compassionate release. That's normal practice in Scotland. If anything, it seems as if the compassionate release may have been used as a carrot to persuade Megrahi to drop his ongoing appeal before it got any more embarrassing for the authorities.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just a comment, to point out that there are really two virtually separate issues here.

First, how reliable is Tony Gauci's identification of Megrahi as the mystery shopper? I'd say there's no possibility at all that the identification was "beyond reasonable doubt". There's oodles and stacks of perfectly reasonable doubt about this. Going a bit further, even if the identification wasn't strong enough to stand up in court, was it likely or possible that the man was Megrahi anyway? In my view no, both in terms of his lack of resemblance to Gauci's original description, and the likelihood that the purchase took place on 23rd November when he was nowhere near Malta. I think we could discuss all these points however.

Secondly, however (and this is where it gets CT-ish), should the whole story be questioned? Is there any mileage at all in the suggestion that the entire episode was fabricated in some way? I have great difficulty seeing how this might fly, but the entire purchase is so weird one does rather wonder if it's all just too convenient.

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

In the OP it is mentioned that there are indications that the witnesses were paid for their testimony.

While I would find that inexcusable (obviously)

Anytime I've seen a reward offered in a criminal investigation it is generally for information leading to a conviction. Surely this is not the first time a witness has been paid for their testimony. The amount may be substantially more than usual, but the principle is the same.

The safeguard against false witness is corroboration. If you don't have that, then things get a bit sticky. The Lockerbie case is the legal equivalent of a massive tar pit.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Anytime I've seen a reward offered in a criminal investigation it is generally for information leading to a conviction. Surely this is not the first time a witness has been paid for their testimony. The amount may be substantially more than usual, but the principle is the same.

This would be an interesting context to develop. I don't feel up to searching for previous cases, but this kind of seems what's going on here. I can see offering inducements if their testimony will cost them or put them in danger. But this is not witness protection, but a flat reward for info (that will have to be false ) to make the case work. I can't see this being a good idea. Compliant but expensive people lined up, and somehow the FBI got bogus evidence. Should seen that coming.

The reward was first publicly offered in 1995 some say, and more geared towards info leading to their apprehension to stand trial. They already had all the evidence they needed, a cartoonishly complete case good enough for a political indictment, sanctions, etc. but adequate only for the most "special" of courts. But the reward was apparently in effect in 1993 as well (as mentioned in the Maltese Double Cross - poster with "we'll give you 4 million reasons to stop terrorism"). Quite likely any time after the indictment in late 91. Edwin Bollier, Swiss timer magnate and total weirdo, says he was offered early on 4million and protection in the US if he swore the Libyans only could have that circuit board. See BBC Conspiracy Files video , 33:30 in. Says this was offered directly by FBI chief Marquise, who then insists the witnesses were all offered nothing for their testimony. But DoJ and State were offering this reward...

In another video, Marquise answers a little differently.
Tegenlicht video - at about 26:30 in, he swears unequivocally no money was paid out prior to the trial, and no "promises" of same later. Asked if there were any payments afterwards, he replies "I'm not gonna answer that." That's as far as youtube research goes, there are much better sources on what did and didn't transpire. Definitions of "promise" apparently vary.

Gauci and his identification of the shapeshifting buyer is covered at 47:00 into that Conspiracy Files video. It's certainly going to be incomplete, but a decent intro if one is feeling behind.

The safeguard against false witness is corroboration. If you don't have that, then things get a bit sticky. The Lockerbie case is the legal equivalent of a massive tar pit.

I think that was the idea at first - Gauci explaining the clothes tags, backed by Giaka supporting the Mebo chip and linked up by the Frankfurt printout. No one would cite any one alone, except maybe the timer bit, as 'the proof." it's the whole scooby-doo gang of evidence, a nice neat one of each kind of thing. And each of these, individually, has its problems, so do they support each other or pull each other down further? Tar pit you say? That sounds more like the latter. One is also left feeling that a case doesn't get that wrong by accident.

 

[Rolfe]

I think the SCCRC definitely established that Tony had been paid $2 million and Paul £1 million.

I started a thread in Social Issues about rewards for information versus bribing witnesses, and the consensus was that rewarding someone for providing a lead which allowed actual evidence to be obtained was fine, but paying someone for giving uncorroborated evidence that secured a conviction wasn't. This case was of course the latter.

The police were obviously desperate to get Tony to identify a suspect, and if you read the expert reports they were doing all the things they shouldn't such as having the photo-identity parades conducted by people who knew which photo was the suspect and so on. Tony was certainly a bear of very little brain, and it's interesting when you read the full evidence how much Paul comes out as encouraging Tony to put his mind to making an identification. It was Paul who was doing most of the talking about money too.

I thought they paid Paul for helping to establish the day of the purchase, but it seems to have been more for keeping Tony's mind on the job, and in order that he should have some money of his own and not be dependant on his nouveau-riche idiot brother.

Tony seems to have been quite astonishingly undecided, even in court. The judges seemed to take that as confirmation that he was being careful and making a true identification, rather than simply declaring it was Megrahi because he knew that's what he was supposed to say. They don't sem to have realised this was actually a pretty dim witness who was desperately trying to follow his brother's instructions on how to net the fortune, without much clue about what he was doing.

I still think the judges' declaration that a witness is more reliable if he seems uncertain, than if he makes a confident identification, is pretty much Stundie material.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Much like the other areas critical to this case, the evidence that was disclosed relating to Tony Gauci's statements, identifications, testimony and general recollection of events before and during the sale of the clothing is littered with inconsistencies and contradictions. Even his evidence that was accepted by the police and more importantly the court, is further compounded by being, at best, disconcertingly vague.

Initially, the date that the would-be bomber had went on his shopping spree was considered to be Wednesday, Nov 23, or Dec 7 1988. One of those dates seemed corroborated with Tony's recollection that his brother had watched a football game on TV that afternoon, (the european 2-leg game on the 7th was played in the evening, whereas it was played the afternoon on 23rd) the Christmas lights in the town had not yet been lit, (the lights were illuminated on the 6th) and there had been light rain which had, most notably, resulted in the buyer purchasing an umbrella just before leaving the shop (At the nearby Luqa airport, slight rain had been recorded in the late afternoon/early evening on the 23rd and no trace had been noted for Dec 7th) . Thursday the 8th December was also a holiday in Malta, and at no point in his statements did Gauci refer to to his shop being closed the day subsequent to the purchase of the assortment of clothing, including the notable umbrella.

Everything initially indicated wed 23rd november as the day of purchase. However, as Megrahi was not in Malta on the 23rd, the thrust for the investigators would be to compel any witnesses and evidence that it would be necessary for Gauci to make, even if obviously ambiguous, that he could at least identify the buyer. Together with contrived and spurious arguments involving alternative football games that Paul may have watched and giving greater credence to the “10% chance of rain” over the 90% probability there had been none, it was concluded the date was of purchase of the bomb clothing was Dec 7th when Megarhi was known to be in Malta.

I don't immediately assert that the whole story of the clothes buying is not genuine, or that the clothes we're told were contained around the bomb were not authentic of Maltese origin, although as has been pointed out, it does on first appearance, seem incomprehensible that any determined bomber would consider buying from a shop where you are more likely to be remembered as oppose to the countless other options you could use for acquiring clothing, and to also then not remove the distinctive labels from your clothes to make, if recovered, tracing far more problematic if not almost impossible. Unless this was deliberate.

Altering the calculus, if it is accepted that the bag could not have been introduced at Luqa, so aptly demonstrated by the prosecution's failure to do so at Zeist and undermined even further by the testimony of Air Malta, their records, and diligent security procedures they had, and therefore the bomb was introduced elsewhere, then the purchase of clothing does carry these same considerations on identification by shop staff as made earlier, although it would dispel the notion of the bomb being put together so close to the introduction point, but that once again, it leaves Megrahi exonerated. Abu Talb, who had also been identified, again by a somewhat uncertain Gauci, was known to have visited Malta during October and November '88, and IIRC clothing from Malta had also been discovered in his home when arrested in Sweden for reasons unrelated to Lockerbie. It would be interesting to know what, if any, clothing had been discovered by the German police on arresting Khreesat with his toshiba bombs in Samsonite suitcases.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Excellent post Buncrana. It shows through that you have been following this for quite a while, and on this point at least you're way out ahead of me. I hadn't heard that the day's game itself was discrepant between the days. If so than the day the prosecutors chose was the one that fit Gauci's story in how many ways? About zero? That he picked the wrong day would show at least some imprecision in how they got him to lie. I suspect there was such a purchase, but who would bother remembering all the details of it clearly? I don't intend to comment on his mental capacity, other than that I hear it was less than optimal, so that's a factor.

I do notice we've mostly been typing from memory, without carefully re-explaining our points with links, etc. It may not be necessary to go detailed like that, but the people outside the choir won't be getting it yet. I wanted to see some debunks and specific points to support Gauci's story, searched a little. Here's the first one I found - Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers. http://www.sacl.info/Lockerbie.htm

6. Eyewitness Evidence by shopkeeper Tony Gauci

EVIDENCE THAT MAY SUPPRT THE VERDICT

Mary's House is a clothes shop located in Sliema, Malta and is situated within walking distance of a hotel that was frequented by Megrahi around the time of the bombing. The proprietor of Mary's House is Tony Gauci, and he gave evidence that was crucial for two reasons. Firstly, he provided an inventory of clothing he sold to a customer in December 1988. Secondly, Gaucci provided evidence in relation to the nationality, demeanor and identity of that customer. His evidence can be summarised as follows:

1. He remembered selling two pairs of Yorkie trousers, two pairs of striped pyjamas, a tweed jacket, a blue Babygro, two Slalom shirts collar size 161/2 , two cardigans, one brown and one blue, and an umbrella, to a man of Libyan appearance shortly before the Lockerbie bombing. Several such items were recovered from the Lockerbie crash site; in particular, a pair of Yorkie trousers, identified as having been placed within the Primary Suitcase. These trousers were traced to a batch delivered to Mary's House in November 1988 and this compelling evidence reinforced the case that the bomb originated in Malta.

2. Gauci was experienced in dealing with customers of varying nationalities and was certain that the customer who bought the clothes was a Libyan - as opposed to say an Egyptian or Tunisian. Gauci also noted that the Libyan didn't take any real interest in the items he was buying - and Gauci thought this to be unusual. He went on to identify Megrahi in court as "having a close resemblance" to the customer who bought the clothes.

EVIDENCE THAT MAY SUPPRT MEGRAHI/LIBYA

1. The judges conceded that Gauci's identification of Megrahi as being the customer was "not an absolutely positive identification".

2. The judges also referred to Gauci's "rather confused recollection" as to the exact date of the sale.

3. It was recently alleged that, prior to making his formal identification of Megrahi, Gauci was exposed to a media article which pictured Megrahi underneath a headline "Who Planted the Bomb?". This evidence was not disclosed before either the Trial Court or Megrahi's 2002 Appeal, but is expected to feature in Megrahi's 2009 appeal.

Discuss. On a side-note, the site's slant can be seen in the sidebar here:

Professor Robert Black QC is highly critical of the judges for accepting Gauci's testimony. He is somewhat less outspoken when it comes to other evidence pointing towards Megrahi's guilt - such as Al Fhima's diary entries about "airline tags" (ruled inadmissible - but of interest to truth seekers everywhere)

For Truth Seekers everywhere I'll cover that in the bag from Malta thread.

Anyway, there are other sources out there supporting the conviction, but I'm not as good as some at finding the debunk resources. What do the mythbuster types say about Tony Gauci's testimony to counter the conspiracy theories that he was paid to lie?

 

[Rolfe]

See what I was saying about that SACL bunch in the other thread. Looks like an club for obsessive disgruntled litigants. And their web design is an insult to the optic nerves.

The assessment of the evidence is superficial at best. At the moment my attitude is "wake me when they say something original".

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I need to have a better look at the exact circumstances, but the story seems to go that the Scottish detectives visited Malta in the summer of 1989, as a result of the label on the babygro (I think) saying "Made in Malta". They drew a blank.

Then in August the Frankfurt police finally came clean about the Erac printout, and decided that it pointed to a bag having come from Malta. Because of that, Malta was visited again, and this time the trail led straight to Gauci. I think my main source for this is Coleman, but he doesn't contradict anyone else, and indeed I think I've read it elsewhere.

OK, here it is. Chapter 7 again.

This tied in nicely with the forensic evidence, which had already shown that the bomb had been hidden in a Samsonite suitcase filled with an assortment of clothing made in Malta, including a baby's blue romper suit.

Less than three months after the disaster, in March 1989, two Scottish police officers had flown out to the island to interview the manufacturer of the romper suit but had drawn blank. At least 500 of them had been sold to babywear outlets all over Europe. To trace the purchaser of the suit that had been all but destroyed in the explosion was clearly impossible. Now, with the baggage records pointing to a suitcase originating in Malta, the field of search was dramatically narrowed.

Two weeks after the BKA released the Frankfurt baggage print-out, two of Detective Chief Superintendent John Orr's men returned to Malta and, with the help of the manufacturers, traced the clothing to a shop in Sliema.

As 'luck' would have it, the proprietors not only remembered selling the exact items which the forensic team had shown were used as packing around the bomb but remembered the date on which they had sold them, 23 November 1988, a month before the bombing; remembered the purchaser -- a Libyan, they thought -- and, ten months after the event, remembered what he looked like clearly enough to brief an FBI video-fit artist to produce an acceptable likeness to Abu Talb of the PFLP-GC, who was known to have visited Malta not long before the bombing.

Leaving the shopkeepers guarded around the clock by security men, the police officers returned home with their questions answered so neatly that in other circumstances they might have been forgiven for suspecting the witnesses had been coached.

I don't see why the Erac printout should magically make it easier to trace the purchaser of the clothes. And yet, somehow, with the help of the Maltese police, the trail led straight there. I can sort of see why Coleman is suspicious.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

See what I was saying about that SACL bunch in the other thread. Looks like an club for obsessive disgruntled litigants. And their web design is an insult to the optic nerves.

The assessment of the evidence is superficial at best. At the moment my attitude is "wake me when they say something original".

Rolfe.

I did and my response fits better here. Go figure.

I'd be interested in any new evidence or insights that they have, but I'm not that interested in their opinions. The whole thing sounds like a bunch of kooks, to be honest.

Rolfe.

It's just the best thing I'd seen yet. Just spent another half hour looking for debunk sources that get specific and point out how Gauci really is reliable, and the kooks have it wrong. Instead, everyone mentioning Gauci by name almost always follows it with "only witness to ID Megrahi," "paid at least $2 million" and maybe "unreliable," or "inconsistent." The pro people's arguments gloss over him almost as completely as they do Giaka. Their argument is he was convicted! In a court, legally guilty, law is the basis of such and such. Basically they got him inside the castle before anyone realized the crime so too late now. What's the metaphor for that?

 

[Rolfe]

I think that's exactly what scuppered the appeal. The defence lawyers approached it wrongly, trying to show that the break-in at Heathrow cast enough doubt on the judgement that it was unsound. The appeal judges apparently said that since the trial had proved the bag came on at Malta, and the appeal didn't challenge that, anything that happened at Heathrow was irrelevant.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It's the sheer multiplicity of strangeness that characterises this case.

First, the clothes purchase. Gauci's uncertain identification and the police trying to manipulate (and bribe) him into making the "right" choice isn't strange. It's practically SOP. The purchase itself, however - why? It would have been perfectly simple to make the clothes in the suitcase almost untraceable, but buying them in that way isn't one of them.

Chalk it down to a silly mistake?

Then there's the disappearing baggage records at Frankfurt, combined with the mysteriously appearing Erac printout, which the German police sit on for about seven months. It's bizarro world.

Chalk it down to extreme incompetence on behalf of the investigators?

Then there's the Bedford suitcase. Not at all strange if it's the actual bomb, but we're led to believe it's not the bomb.

Pure coincidence?

And maybe not finally, but it'll do for now, there's the inexplicable timing of the explosion in the context of the MST-13 timer. If you, whoever you are, have a timer that can be set for days, weeks and months in advance, why do you set it for only an hour after the plane is due to push off from the gate?

Oh, that's just another silly mistake.

This may be fanciful, but I do wonder just how much of this could indeed be deliberate misdirection.

Suppose the bomb went on at Heathrow, it was indeed the Bedford suitcase, smuggled into the airport through the broken padlock the evening before. And the trigger was a perfectly simple Khreesat special, 40 +/- 5 minutes being the set detonation time. And Jibril knew the PA103A/103 was being used as a "controlled" drug delivery route by the DEA. So he picked that flight because he knew that investigating it would be an acute embarrassment to quite a lot of people. He knew enough about the Heathrow arrangements to get the bomb bag on the container that would be used for the Frankfurt luggage, and was able to get it positioned where it would actually blow out the hull, even though it was a small device.

And maybe this plan actually leaked a bit, enough to persuade some people (like the South African delegation) to avoid the flight, even if only on a "just in case" basis. Maybe someone even thought it was worth trying to get an inconvenient opposition party (Carlsson) on the flight, just in case.

That's the scenario that actually makes sense of the evidence. But then, some people in a position to do something about it, really really don't want Heathrow or Frankfurt airports investigated.

Just how much manipulation and misdirection might actually have gone on to persuade the cops to stop looking there and look at Luqa instead?

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

On the switch to Malta, it seems the CIA had its contacts there from well before Lockerbie. May play into how the Gaucis came into it. From a Mebo page:

In addition to the attendance of Giaka, there was another individual, who had introduced him to the United States Embassy in Malta, who initially acted as interpreter and subsequently as a source of information.
The CIA is protecting the identity this person who is identified in the *cables as "T1". In my opinion the identity should be disclosed. The person who lives in the St.Paul's Bay area and the name appeared on the first witness list released with the first indictment. As the address, the Maltese Police Headquarters was given. Then after a protests, the identity was protected!