Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Rolfe]

They can't date it, Giaka vouched for it, shows a teenager at his prom, looks like to me. Gauci said it would have to be "ten years older" to match his 50-year old buyer. Is that a change just between '89 and '91? The buyer was perhaps already younger, perhaps about Megrahi's age.

CL, only America has "proms", the like of which you speak. Certainly in the 1960s. And even now, I'd take a large bet this is not part of Libyan culture.

It's a passport photo.

As to age, I don't think it's possible to tell. The quality is so poor that all the little detail such as wrinkles and crows' feet that give clues as to age are wiped out. It's not an old man for sure, but it's not at all impossible that it's someone in his 30s.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Just to double-check, since you used "knackered" as an adjective as well - this is a fictional cop, not a real one, right?

No way do Henderson and Bell not realize this is improper as they're doing it.

Hmmmm. I was copied into an email sent by Jim Swire after he returned from Libya last month. In it he said that Megrahi is very very bitter against Harry Bell. I was a bit surprised, because I was seeing Cannistraro and even Marquise as the fit-up villains. But it's Bell Megrahi apparently blames to a large extent for what happened to him. I suppose it was Bell who pushed and pushed for the identification of Megrahi as the clothes purchaser, and without that there would have been no conviction.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Gauci had also previous to picking Megrahi, chose a number of others who also "resembled" the man he thought was the purchaser. Apart from at one point he picked Talb, Mohammed Sollem was also picked on the 14th Sep 89, as certain features matched his recollection but needed to look 20 years older, and Shukri Mohamed whom he picked on 26 Sep 89 also "resembled" the purchaser but was too young, and this person was 47. In October '89 he chose someone from a photospread whom Gauci thought again similar to the purchaser, and was "50% sure" it was also the man who had returned to the shop to buy a girls dress.

Do you have a source for the pictures of these individuals? It's instructive to realise just how many men Tony picked out as "resembling" the purchaser. In that respect, Megrahi was only one of several. I'm not sure, but I think he picked someone out of virtually every photospread, as the man most closely resembling his memory of the purchaser, of the pictures presented at that time.

Megrahi was just one of half a dozen or so men identified in this way, and no doubt if Bell had gone on showing him photospreads of clean-shaven Arab men with big hair, he'd have picked out even more.

There was no particular reason to follow up Megrahi compared to the other picks, except he was someone they thought they could make a case against.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting stuff, for sure, much of which I didn't know. Like the old ID, and thanks for showing the whole image. I'm starting a blog post about it now. Hope you guys don't mind me sucking up some of what you've done here. Still absorbing it too...

Well, just don't say it's a "prom picture". It's a passport photo. And you can't tell what age the subject is.

So far I'm still over by where I was after trying in Photoshop. I can't rule out these all being the same guy, but I'm not convinced it is either.

It's impossible to say for sure it's not him, particularly as the defence don't seem to have challenged it. The eyes are sort of the same. The real killer is, we have a picture of Megrahi at 19 and one of him at 35, and the path from one to the other really doesn't seem to include anything resembling the "Czech photo".

Maybe he was on high-dose prednisolone at the time? Or he had mumps? Or was deliberately distorting his face for some reason?

The hair is another oddity though. Whenever Megrahi has allowed the front of his hair to grow long-ish, it's always the same. We see it at 19, at 35 and at 47, the same curls flopping on to his forehead. Yes, when he has the front of his hair short (as in recent 2008 photos, and in the 1993 Maltese Double Cross interview) it's not there. But in the Czech photo there is more hair than in any of the others, and these characteristic curls are simply not there.

On balance, I don't think it's him.

But then again, whether it is or isn't, is not really the point. Tony Gauci, in 1991, picked out a photo which is not actually recognisable as a picture of Megrahi. Dammit, we have a decent picture of what Megrahi must have looked like at the time Tony is supposed to have seen him, and it's nothing like the picture Tony said "resembled" the purchaser!

It was already shown to Gauci. Was it Megrahi at that time, or just a guy with a fro? I really don't want or need yet another wrinkle like that. My word, it's insane enough already. But it seems a valid question.

Giaka said it was Megrahi, only a younger photo? No, that can't be all of it. They must have had some fundamental reason for thinking they had a pic of the right guy....

Henderson discussed the photo spread leading to the Gauci identification of Megrahi. Although no one could positively date the photograph shown to Gauci, he was reluctant to show any more photos without fear of tainting what he had already provided. Henderson opined the reason Megrahi had purchased the clothing when he seemed to be a high ranking intelligence officer was because he wanted to be sure no one else knew what was happening. We did not know if this was true, but was a possibility.

Well, of course they're not going to show him a better photo in case he says, no not that guy.

As you say, if nobody could date it, what does that say about its provenance? Was Giaka the only one who was certifying it as even being Megrahi's picture? This gets more surreal by the minute.

And yes, it's odd that a high-ranking intelligence officer would buy the clothes for the bomb. Didn't they have an errand boy? But it's even odder that the same high-ranking intelligence officer who had to show his undisguised face at Luqa airport where he was well known, on the morning of the bombing, and for no obvious reason, would also make the very conspicuous and memorable clothes purchase.

He's got this impenetrable plan to smuggle the bomb on to KM180, which is so clever it will never be discovered how that was done and indeed no trace of the bomb will ever be found on the island - so he decides to blow it all by making a very memorable purchase of new, traceable clothes only three miles away, in person. And at the same time he sets the timer so ridiculously early that a crash on land is close to guaranteed (if it doesn't just go pop on the tarmac).

Yeah, right.

shows a teenager at his prom, looks like to me.

Quit that. It's a passport photo, that much is obvious. And there simply isn't the resolution to estimate age other than that he's not a child or geriatric. And they don't have "proms" in Libya.

Rolfe.

 

[pete2]

Quote:
But (the records show) McKnacker has been fretting about the fact that the grainy photo of Megrahi is 12 years old, so he hears Gauci saying yes, Megrahi aged 24 would look like the customer, if he were 10-15 years older. Result!

Just to double-check, since you used "knackered" as an adjective as well - this is a fictional cop, not a real one, right?

CL - My apologies, I was being a bit parochial there. 'Inspector McKnacker' is a generic term for the Scottish police in the UK satirical magazine Private Eye. I was first made aware of the holes in the case against the two Libyans by the writings of the late Paul Foot in the Eye. He, notably, attended the whole of the trial and wrote the pamphlet Lockerbie - the Flight from Justice.

Quote:
(6) There is NO reason 6.
Seriously? Where is that from? Hadn't see it yet.

The list of 'reasons' is quoted on p.102 of the Grounds of Appeal. In that document reason (6) is just an ellipsis - I don't know whether it was omitted for some reason from the Grounds of Appeal, or was redacted from Bell's diary before handing it to the SCCRC (hey, maybe it's a reference to the sooper-sekrit evidence! )

Pete

 

[Caustic Logic]

Just found the Grounds of appeal was the source for the Scicluna passage above as well. So much that hasn't made it into public awareness but did get included in the reasoning for why the conviction should be overturned. An amazing document that one.

I almost forgot I should say that I finally finished an adequate post of the Czech photo issues.

ETA: Not one instance of "prom." Just got stuck on that image, imagining it to be a bit of humorous "color" for this bizarre episode.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hmmmm. I was copied into an email sent by Jim Swire after he returned from Libya last month. In it he said that Megrahi is very very bitter against Harry Bell. I was a bit surprised, because I was seeing Cannistraro and even Marquise as the fit-up villains. But it's Bell Megrahi apparently blames to a large extent for what happened to him. I suppose it was Bell who pushed and pushed for the identification of Megrahi as the clothes purchaser, and without that there would have been no conviction.

Rolfe.

It's that darned police diary. Right in there are recorded so many egregious lapses of investigative protocol - the "reasoning" Pete brings to our attention above, the decision that Megrahi's presence on 7 December in fact means that was the date, actual clues aside. Whatever else... I'm not sure he's any more complicit than someone else of his rank or position, but his diary in particular lets you see it.

Beyond Malta, Bell was involved with the Indian Head forensics tests, his log of it standing in for Feraday's, who, despite organizing the tests and building all the bombs used, didn't record the findings himself.

And Bell was tasked with refuting the German BKA's ST33 report on the Khreesat "ignition devices." Found their report indicating a London introduction full of "speculation." So he was a bigwig who was all across the board in this across-the-board shady investigation.

ETA: Side-note - I take the continued silence from Bunntamas' end as a good sign that she's actually considering something new, or just coincidentally caught up in something else at just that moment. No drive-by pot-shots at side-issues or anything. That's good - I was getting annoyed at waiting for an answer to any of my few relevant questions. Now that we can all see she wasn't even aware of the questions' existence, despite the asking, we can stop waiting for an answer to any of them anytime soon, and continue our own discussions.

Talked to death? Not by a long shot. Unseen new shoots of life sprout from nearly every line of inquiry one chooses to follow.

 

[Rolfe]

Well, quite apart from any contribution Bunntamas may make, I'm glad we're having this discussion. There are aspects to this "identification" that are even more shocking than I had originally realised, and I'm glad to be getting my brain round it a bit more.

Rolfe.

 

[pete2]

Just to try to clarify things re that photograph of Megrahi, used in the February 1991 photospread: Bell says he's been told the photo is 12 years old, which would date it as around 1979 I suppose, so it would show Megrahi aged about 26 (not 24 as I said earlier - I forgot to allow for the two years between the purchase of the clothes and the photospread - not that it makes any difference.)

Rolfe, CL and Buncrana, I agree it doesn't look very much like the other pictures of Megrahi, whether older or younger, but I suppose it wouldn't be the first time that a photograph was an extraordinarily bad likeness of its subject. DCI Bell blames the Americans for rushing into the photospread before a good picture could be obtained, but also notes that they blame the Scots:

meeting with Special Agent Reid. He tried to imply that we were rushing showing the photograph spread. ....they were the ones that wanted it done before Bollier left the USA. (Grounds of appeal p.101, ellipsis in original.)

 

[Rolfe]

On one hand, I'd dearly love to know whether that picture is really Megrahi or not. Yes, there are some god-awful passport photos in the world, but I have a lot of trouble believing he ever looked like that, given the appearance of all the other photos we have of him. In 1988, when we know he looked like the Abdusamad photo, I seriously believe he should not have been allowed to travel on a passport with the Czech photo in it.

On the other hand, whether it's actually him or not is a side-issue. It doesn't look like him, as he was in 1988. Megrahi in 1988 looked like the Abdusamad photo. If what walked into Gauci's shop in 1988 was Megrahi, then someone who had a good memory of him should specifically not have picked that "Czech" photo as resembling the customer!

[mode=CT]
One thing which is striking about the Czech photo is its resemblance to the photofit Tony constructed in 1989. I've seen people put these together and say, look, it's obvious the purchaser was Megrahi.

Is it possible that someone, in early 1991, could have airbrushed or digitally manipulated a real photo of Megrahi to make it resemble that photofit, and so encourage Tony to pick it out?
[/mode]

OK, I realise that's a serious piece of kite-flying, but in a case this weird and with credible suspicions of evidence-tampering in other respects, I just wanted to say it.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

[mode=CT]
One thing which is striking about the Czech photo is its resemblance to the photofit Tony constructed in 1989. I've seen people put these together and say, look, it's obvious the purchaser was Megrahi.

[qimg]http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/photofit.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/m-czech.jpg[/qimg]

Is it possible that someone, in early 1991, could have airbrushed or digitally manipulated a real photo of Megrahi to make it resemble that photofit, and so encourage Tony to pick it out?
[/mode]

OK, I realise that's a serious piece of kite-flying, but in a case this weird and with credible suspicions of evidence-tampering in other respects, I just wanted to say it.

Rolfe.

I had a slightly different scenario running around my head, but essentially what your suggesting without the altering of the Czech photo.

I suppose we won't, and never will probably, know if at any point previous to Gauci picking out the 'Czech' picture of Megrahi in Feb '91, if the passport photo of Abdusamad was ever shown during all the photospreads he was asked to look over from Sep '89?

Never picking out the Abdusamad photo of Megrahi from 1987 obviously, because Gauci didn't recognise it as the purchaser, and indeed, it certainly didn't bear any similarities to the photofit or artists impression produced through Gauci's own description and memory. Not like the 'Czech' photo though, which does show some slight resemblance to the photofit and the hair matches the artists impression..

Despite a tenuous identification by Gauci, to compound the investigators further, and latterly Gauci, the rest of his initial recollection of size, height and age were wholly inconsistent to the man in the Czech photo, Megrahi. Not too mention the small issue of the day and date the purchaser entered the shop. These other forms of 'identification' originally given to investigators would however become increasingly contradictory, confusing and vague.

It'd be interesting to know when the investigation first came across the Abdusamad photo, (I think this was the one eventually used in the $4m Rewards Adverts taken out in the newpapers) and even if it were not known to the investigation until after Gauci's 'identification' of the Czech photo, why wouldn't they present him with the photo relevant to the time he claimed Megrahi entered his shop, 1988, with a view to him confirming the identification of the Czech photo and the Abdusamad 1987 photo, as still bearing a true resemblence or likeness?

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose we don't know when they got hold of the Abdusamad picture. Seems bizarre they wouldn't have used it if they had it....

Robert Black points out (by email) that Megrahi was involved in every aspect of his appeal, and would surely have said something if that photo wasn't him. Which is a very fair point. And there were some pretty regrettable hairstyles going around in 1978, why should he have been exempt?

That doesn't, however, detract from the sheer lack of resemblance of that photo to Megrahi as he was in 1988. I can't believe nobody made a big deal about this in court.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I was wondering about the collar size part.

Looking at the two pictures I juxtaposed above (the photofit and the Czech photo), the diameter of the necks is markedly different. Tony made a point of saying the customer was a 16½ or 17 inch collar size. Is that big, guys? Would it fit with "burly" or whatever?

It's not a huge point, because Tony picked out a number of photos as resembling the customer which showed unremarkable neck sizes, including the Czech photo. But he did spontaneously give that collar size estimate at an early stage, and the photofit and the artist's impression both have quite thick necks.

If Tony said that was the customer's collar size, I would be inclined to think he would be right about that.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I was wondering about the collar size part.

Looking at the two pictures I juxtaposed above (the photofit and the Czech photo), the diameter of the necks is markedly different. Tony made a point of saying the customer was a 16½ or 17 inch collar size. Is that big, guys? Would it fit with "burly" or whatever?

It's not a huge point, because Tony picked out a number of photos as resembling the customer which showed unremarkable neck sizes, including the Czech photo. But he did spontaneously give that collar size estimate at an early stage, and the photofit and the artist's impression both have quite thick necks.

If Tony said that was the customer's collar size, I would be inclined to think he would be right about that.

Rolfe.

It seems that my neck measures about 14" around. I'm 6'3," not exactly a pencil neck, but close. 17" collar on a guy about 6'1" would be a pretty well-built dude. Sounds almost like the description of someone who, despite what he said at Zeist, has experience with height and build and probably even age. Not to mention whether it was raining, dark and gloomy or glowing with Christmas cheer, etc...

So to accept Tony's identification of Megrahi one has to presume he was wrong on everything relevant, which should leave one wondering what made his pointing to this odd photo at one point so amazingly meaningful as to underwrite that acceptance.

 

[Bunntamas]

Yawwwn... Baybygros were purchased as well. Whattaya think the neck size were on those? Hmmm... six foot baby? LOL! What's next in your CTs? a 15-17" neck size on a baby sleeper? LOL!!! Who says Megrahi was purchasing all of the things at Mary's House for himself? What's the average size and variety of stuff (much less an umbrella - for which you all, much less the "official" JFM cannot get your / their story straight) necessary for wrapping around a bomb and to stuff into a suitcase and make it look like it's good enough to pass security? DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!

 

[Caustic Logic]

Yawwwn...

What's that the result of? Up all night and morning catching up on some the most basic facts of the case? Doesn't sound like it.

Baybygros were purchased as well. Whattaya think the neck size were on those?

17 inch is a description of the NECK on the reasonably built buyer, not anything with the clothes. Please if you must perpetrate another drive-by duh-bunking, you could try to either slow down or keep your tires on the pavement. Otherwise you will skid out of control like this:

Hmmm... six foot baby? LOL! What's next in your CTs? a 15-17" neck size on a baby sleeper? LOL!!! Who says Megrahi was purchasing all of the things at Mary's House for himself? What's the average size and variety of stuff (much less an umbrella - for which you all, much less the "official" JFM cannot get your / their story straight) necessary for wrapping around a bomb and to stuff into a suitcase and make it look like it's good enough to pass security? DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!

You've never been able to explain any of your previous bizarre ramblings, but this one takes the cake. You just misunderstood what the neck measurement referred to, but darned if you'll ever confess to that little weakness.

Again - It was the measurement he guessed looking at the buyer's neck, as a man experienced in height and build, who also felt the man was at least six foot tall, more burly, older, darker, with different hair, and a different date of presence on Malta from Megrahi. Please don't even bother trying to keep up. It's clearly hopeless. Let my nastiness be your escape clause and save us all some time.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hey, before I nod off, a quick sorry. I don't really mean to bust up any actual chance of constructive discussion where both sides listen to each other. I just wasn't able to see one at the moment. I lost the faith for a bit there. Of course we're all learning from each other here.

Bunntamas: I agree with you that a six foot baby suit would be ridiculous, and if 17" collar had referred the bought clothing, this says nothing about the buyer by necessity. Do you in turn acknowledge that as a description of the buyer's estimated collar size, it is relevant to the buyer?

Do you agree further that there IS a legitimate discrepancy between Tony's earliest description of the purchaser and al Megrahi? 6" or more, for one point. Do you agree that Tony's first statement says that? You've never asnwered anything I've asked of you, including this simple point your last words about were asking Rolfe where we learned it from, and we've told you. Have you learned it yet?

Give us a sign or something, please.

 

[pete2]

Tony made a point of saying the customer was a 16½ or 17 inch collar size. Is that big, guys? Would it fit with "burly" or whatever?

Corresponds to 44-46 inch chest - this agrees with Gauci's estimation that a 42in jacket would be too small. So yes, definitely burly.

Bunntamas, this has nothing to do with any item that was actually purchased from Mary's House: Gauci made this point at the same time as he was maintaining that the man didn't buy any shirts. He was just commenting on the actual size of the customer.

Pete

 

[Rolfe]

Well, quite apart from any contribution Bunntamas may make, I'm glad we're having this discussion. There are aspects to this "identification" that are even more shocking than I had originally realised, and I'm glad to be getting my brain round it a bit more.

It seems Bunntamas thought I was dismissing her contribution to the thread, in this remark.

Nothing was further from my intention. I was merely trying to convey that I found this topic worthwhile for its own sake, whether or not Bunntamas (who had requested the discussion) chose to contribute.

I find it worthwhile because it is leading me to realise that Tony Gauci's "identification" of Megrahi is even shakier than I had previously believed. I had thought he had picked out a picture which was a reasonable likeness of Megrahi, in February 1991. I now realise the picture the police chose to show him that day actually looked nothing like Megrahi himself, and that the police chose not to show him a picture which was a good likeness.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Yawwwn... Baybygros were purchased as well. Whattaya think the neck size were on those? Hmmm... six foot baby? LOL! What's next in your CTs? a 15-17" neck size on a baby sleeper? LOL!!! Who says Megrahi was purchasing all of the things at Mary's House for himself? What's the average size and variety of stuff (much less an umbrella - for which you all, much less the "official" JFM cannot get your / their story straight) necessary for wrapping around a bomb and to stuff into a suitcase and make it look like it's good enough to pass security? DUUUUUUHHHHH!!!!

Bunntamas, I wish you'd slow down a little and approach this logically. You don't seem to be following the discussion.

Yes, we know the mystery shopper bought a babygro (just the one). He asked Tony what age the garment would fit, and on being told up to two years, said he would take one. We are not suggesting the customer was two years old.

We know the customer bought an umbrella. We know that umbrellas are essentially one-size-fits-all.

That doesn't alter the fact that Tony believed the customer was buying some (or possibly most) of the clothes for himself.

He asked for a gents jacket and when I asked him for his size he then asked for the biggest size which was size 42. [....] I would say that the jacket was too small for him.

On picking out the trousers I asked him what size and he said more or less my size.

It is thus entirely understandable that Tony mentally estimated the measurements of the customer. He seems a little surprised that the man was buying things that wouldn't have fitted him, apparently not really caring about fit.

So when he was asked about the purchaser, nine months later, his most detailed information was in respect of the man's vital statistics and body shape.

• Six feet or more in height
• Big chest
• Large head
• Well built
• The 42" jacket would have been too small
• Not fat or paunchy
• 36" waist
• 16½ to 17" collar size
• About 50 years old

Pete2 seems to confirm that the estimate of 16½ to 17" collar size supports the assertion that the man was noticeably hefty, burly or well-built.

Which Megrahi is not, nor ever has been.

This was Tony's first description of the purchaser, when he was first asked to recall the sale of these clothes. When his recollection would have been at its freshest.

It differs from Megrahi in several significant respects. He is five feet eight inches tall, of average build, and was 36 years old in late 1988.

Rolfe.