Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Rolfe]

I'll need to read the transcript on that, because I'm not quite following you. Did Harry Bell say the Czech photo was from a 1986 passport? He was also busy saying that photo was taken in about 1978.

When you say a photo was shown on the screen, do you mean the Czech photo? Did anyone happen to mention it's actually unrecognisable as an image of Megrahi, certainly as he was at the time of the purchase, which we know from the Abdusamad photo.

Which photo did you mean was shown on the screen before Gauci made the dock identification?

Rolfe.

 

[Matt Berkley]

DCI Bell said in court that the photo used in the 1991 spread and the photo in the 1986 passport were the same. Both were shown on the screen.

I'm unaware of anyone mentioning in court a lack of resemblance between that photo and either the Abdusamad passport photo or the late-1991 TV interview.

(Incidentally, we might think it would have been a good idea for the police to show Mr Gauci the video for confirmation - if that were appropriate, given the reach of publication and/or broadcast of those images and/or others at the time and the circumstances under which the video was made including the nature of the interview. A video has the sound of the person's voice as well as usually showing the person from different angles and moving, all features of real life not shared by photos. Perhaps they could have taken an excerpt, or maybe there was no fair or permissible way to do it.)

The photo shown on the screen just before Mr Gauci's dock "identification" was in the magazine he said he was shown by the other shopkeeper.


...............................


On the passport photo, the trial court Opinion says (paragraph 62):

"DCI Bell later gave evidence that the person shown in photograph 8 was the first accused, being apparently the same as the photograph in the first accused's 1986 passport."

The transcript says (page 4862):

"Q Could we have on the screen, please, Production 436 at image 1. Is that the photo spread that you showed Mr. Gauci that day?

A That is. Yes."

then at 4865-6:

"[Q] Could we have on the screen now, please, Production 1771....How does the passport photograph on the passport compare with the photograph that you included in the photo spread of the man called Abdelbaset?

A I would say it's the same photograph."


I'm wondering how the investigators came to be saying the photo was much older. It does look to me like a younger man than in the 1987 Abdusamad photo, but if it came from the Czech authorities did the investigators already know that it was from a current passport?

Whether the fact that in 1989 it was renewed until 1994 (as the translator said, pages 4585-6) is of any significance I don't know.

As an aside, the Abdusamad passport said he was born in 1957 rather than 1952. If that was thought credible, then maybe he looked younger than 36 at the time, and Mr Gauci's initial evidence on age might weigh even more against Mr Megrahi being the purchaser.

I'm also wondering about any difference in quality between the photo and the others in the spread. If Mr Taylor was right that that photo was less clear, and the police were giving off, unsurprisingly, signals that this was a big event, then that route is an easy candidate for how this photo was chosen by Mr Gauci. No need even for the police to see which photo Mr Gauci is looking at.

At page 10644 in the first appeal Mr Taylor says:

"the submission I make is that that photograph, to which I have just referred, is plainly less clear than the others".

It might be interesting to see the whole spread.

........................................


On the magazine photo shown to Mr Gauci just before his dock "identification":

[Page 4774]

Q Could we have on the screen, please, Production 451....Was that the article in the magazine which a fellow shopkeeper showed to you?

A Yes.

...Q Towards the bottom of the page in the article, is there a photograph in the centre, of a man wearing glasses?

A Yes.

Q Did you recognise that photograph?

A That day I thought he looked like the man who bought from me, but his hair was much shorter, and he didn't wear glasses.

Q And did you show that photograph to Mr.

4775
Scicluna?

A Yes.

Q Do you remember what you said to Mr. Scicluna when you showed it to him?

A Well, now, I told him, "This chap looks like the man who bought articles from me." Something like that I told him.

Q If Mr. Scicluna says that you said "that's him," would that be correct?

A I don't remember now. I remember I told him, "This man looks like the man who bought articles from me." This is what I said -- I don't know exactly what I said. But I said he might have said that, but his hair and his glasses were not like that, the day he bought from me. And it was much shorter than that and he was without glasses."

Then the dock "identification" begins at page 4777.

 

[Matt Berkley]

Three other things.

Mr Taylor said at the first appeal (page 10666) something else about the article:

"This issue was obviously one which had the potential to influence Mr. Gauci in that identification and the one he made in Court. The article not only showed a photograph of the appellant and named him as a suspect, but also stated that he had been identified by Mr. Gauci as the purchaser of the clothes. It, therefore, went to the heart of Mr. Gauci's evidence."

....

Mr Megrahi's height: At page 4585 it is read from the 1986 passport as being 1 metre 70. That is under 5 foot 7 - so, less than measured at the ID parade and further from the "about six foot or more" mentioned by Mr Gauci to begin with.

One question is - did the person or people measuring the height at the ID parade know about Mr Gauci's evidence about six feet? I realise that measurements may vary and/or be rounded up or down, that the discrepancy may be a small matter and that it may be unfair and unnecessary to mention the possibility of even unconscious communication or influence.

But in any case, if he were really shorter than 5'8" (rounding up and/or down in two instances, and variation in measurement and posture, could together make for some difference greater or smaller than an inch), then that would mean he was nearer to Mr Gauci's own height.

Since people might reasonably be expected to judge height more accurately when dealing with people close to their own height, a small difference could make it appreciably less likely that Mr Gauci would describe a tall man.

....

Possibly in the other general direction of evidence against Mr Megrahi, a page I linked to at twitter dot com slash mattberkley says no measurable rain on 23 Nov 88.

 

[Buncrana]

You beat me to that Matt!

However, it's interesting, the whole short passage in Para 62 of the judgement

DCI Bell later gave evidence that the person shown in photograph 8 was the first accused, being apparently the same as the photograph in the first accused’s 1986 passport. He also said that before showing Mr Gauci the card of photographs he had all the other photographs dulled down to the same level of brightness as the first accused’s photograph. He said that he did that simply for fairness because the rest of the photographs were brighter and sharper than that of the first accused and he wanted them all to look the same. Counsel for the first accused submitted that DCI Bell’s attempts to make the quality of all the photographs similar had failed, but in our view this criticism has no validity.

Now, where I'm confused by this assertion is that DCI Bell is stating that the photograph picked out by Gauci is the one which is from Megrahi's "Abdusamad" passport photo.

Here:

I'm also presuming it was this photo, above, which was shown on the screen at Zeist..?

Which then doesn't make sense to me whatsoever.

Because, this photo wouldn't appear to be dull or lacking quality thus requiring the other photo's in the spread shown to Gauci in Feb 1991 to be "dulled down" as Bell intimated. Unless the other photo's used in the spread before Gauci, of terror suspects, underworld operators and criminals were all of almost digital clarity?...

....


In stark contrast however, and which was my assumption, that Gauci had, in Feb 1991, picked out this (date unknown, but thought to be late 1970's) photo of Megrahi

Here:

This photo does indeed appear to be severely lacking in quality, definition and brightness. Therefore, this photo when placed in amongst a spread of photos shown to Gauci, would indeed probably require the other photo's to be "dulled down" to replicate the quite obvious problems inherent in this photo. I mean even if taken in the 1970's, what the helll camera was that photo taken with? A Box brownie for goodness sake?

 

[Matt Berkley]

The 1986 passport was in Mr Megrahi's own name.

 

[Buncrana]

The 1986 passport was in Mr Megrahi's own name.

I see.

Okay, so Megrahi had his own passport, issued in 1986, and then was issued with the Abdusamad passport by the ESO in 1987.

So, the Abdusamad passport and its, presumably, associated photo of Megrahi was never used, or referred to, either in the photospreads or in court, but was perhaps the same photo Megrahi had used on his own passport anyway?

Was this ever confirmed that both passports, the one issued in 1986, and the Abdusamad one issued in '87, both carried the same photo of Megrahi?

Nevertheless, my point still stands that DCI Bell's statement and testimony at Zeist regarding the events and details of how the photospread was conducted, and the standard of photographs used, when Gauci remarked on a possible resemblance to the purchaser, does not indicate a photograph was used that is either dull or lacking sharpness by any standard.

Unlike the black and white photo, which is most certainly a poor quality photo, and that when presented along with 11 other photograqphs, may well require the other photo's to be appropriately "dulled down".

 

[Rolfe]

That photo seems so unlike him, I'd have been surprised if he'd actually been allowed to travel on it without at least some query.

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Sorry, bit of cross-posting there.

I just want to clarify things here.

DCI Bell is saying the photo that Gauci picked out in Feb '91, was actually the colour photo of Megrahi taken c1986, yes? And this was the photo taken from Megrahi's genuine passport he applied for in 1986?

However, at the same time, we have Bell stating that the photo, no.8, the colour one, picked out by Gauci was poor quality, lacking sharpness and brightness? Hmmm..

So, where does the Czech photo come in here?

And no photo was ever produced from the Abdusamad passport, or was it thought to be the same photo as Megrahi used in his genuine 1986 passport?

So, why the discussion by Henderson about the date of the Czech photo, and why does Marquise say in his book, "Giaka had looked at the Czech passport picture identified by Gauci."??

 

[Rolfe]

Here's what Pete2 said on Caustic Logic's blog.

What's baffling me is that, according to the records, the Americans had two different photographs of Megrahi, and got Edwin Bollier to pick out the best likeness:

Memo M2618 from SIO to WMFO (11/2/91): “…It would be very much appreciated if the Quantico team could introduce as early as possible the photographs of the Libyans to Bollier. It is imperative to determine which photograph of Abdelbaset is the best reproduction of how he looked in December 1988 before the photograph selection is shown to Gauci. Is it the one with the collar and tie or the one with the open neck shirt?...I would wish to avoid misleading the witness Gauci during the photograph viewing, if at all possible. It would avoid the impossible situation of showing two photos of the same suspect…”

Extract from DCI Bell Diary (11/2/91): “Attended US Embassy with McAdam. Met with SA Reid who produced a number of photos…Two photos of Abdelbaset one with collar/tie, one with open shirt. Point: Bollier in his statement picks out photo 18 stating it is Baset. We must confim the ID and use this to show witness in spread.”

So what was the other photo, and was it really a worse likeness than the Czech photo?

Where's Bollier when you need him?

This does sound very much as if it's the Abdusamad photo and the Czech photo they're talking about, especially as we know the Czech photo showed Megrahi wearing a collar and tie before it was cropped for the photospread. This is saying they asked Edwin which of these two very different images was the best likeness, and Edwin chose the one that doesn't look a lick like the man.

If that was a photo from a 1986 passport, I'm assuming that they got it via a bad photocopy that existed in Czechoslovakia?

Harry Bell estimated it had been taken in about 1978-9 I think. That was the three-card trick about the age. After Tony rejected all the pictures as too young, Harry Bell told Tony to try again, and implied that the man might have been 10 or 15 years older when Tony saw him. (That would potentially put it as far back as 1973, dammit!) Tony said, well, that seems to be a man in his thirties. If he was about ten years older he would look like the purchaser. This maintains his position that the purchaser was around 50, or maybe a bit under in this case.

However, Harry Bell then decided Megrahi was actually about 26 in that photo, so Tony's statement can be taken to be consistent with a man of 36, bingo. Fourteen years vanish in a puff of logic.

But age aside, the fact is Tony seems to have identified a photo which is such a bad likeness it's well-nigh unrecognisable as Megrahi, and certainly totally unlike the 47-year-old Megrahi Tony met at Zeist.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, here's a full picture of a passport with the photo we've been calling the Abdusamad picture in it.

http://images.news10now.com/media/2008/12/18/images/01megrahi_passport.jpg

Unfortunately I don't read Arabic so I can't tell what the name or anything else is.

And here's an oddity. It seems to be the same photo, but degraded to try to make it look more like the Czech one. Without success, I'd say.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/50...C6D32C08C2F2ABE5CE2E8C16E80A1B01E70F2B3269972

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Ok, the BBC say the colour photo is taken from the Abdusamad passport, and Gauci picked out the Czech photo, which seems to have no reference except it was obtained via the Czechs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1145884.stm


So, what the devil is DCI Bell playing at now??!

 

[Buncrana]

Oh, here's a full picture of a passport with the photo we've been calling the Abdusamad picture in it.

http://images.news10now.com/media/2008/12/18/images/01megrahi_passport.jpg

Unfortunately I don't read Arabic so I can't tell what the name or anything else is.

And here's an oddity. It seems to be the same photo, but degraded to try to make it look more like the Czech one. Without success, I'd say.

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/50...C6D32C08C2F2ABE5CE2E8C16E80A1B01E70F2B3269972


Rolfe.

Actually, I think I've seen, or possibly got somewhere, a better quality version of that whole passport photo. I'll try and track it down and put it up.

I've never seen that second one before Rolfe. Very interesting...

 

[Rolfe]

Ok, the BBC say the colour photo is taken from the Abdusamad passport, and Gauci picked out the Czech photo, which seems to have no reference except it was obtained via the Czechs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1145884.stm

So, what the devil is DCI Bell playing at now??!

OK, so that confirms that the whole passport with the picture we're calling the Abdusamad photo is indeed in the name of Abdusamad.

They also confirm that what Tony Gauci identified in 1991 is what we're calling the Czech photo.

So far so good. This all checks, along with the appearance of the photos because Edwin chose the one with the collar and tie to be used in the photospread, and we know that because of this the bottom had to be chopped off all the pictures to conceal the fact that none of the others featured such sartorial elegance. The Abdusamad photo shows Megrahi wearing an open-neck shirt, while the bottom of the Czech photo is indeed cropped where a collar and tie would be.

Matt seems to be saying that the "Czech photo" is from a passport issued to Megrahi in his own name in 1986. This is quite odd in the context of Bell claiming that the photo was 12 years old or something like that. Surely most people have a new photo taken for a new passport?

It's also extremely peculiar in other ways. Why even consider using such a grainy, poor-quality picture when you have a good-resolution colour photo? Especially as the good-resolution one doesn't even have a collar and tie which have to be chopped off.

And why has nobody noticed that the picture Tony picked out doesn't look a lick like Megrahi at all?

Rolfe.

 

[Buncrana]

Matt seems to be saying that the "Czech photo" is from a passport issued to Megrahi in his own name in 1986. This is quite odd in the context of Bell claiming that the photo was 12 years old or something like that. Surely most people have a new photo taken for a new passport?


Rolfe.

Yes, but that's not all.

This particular passport seems as though it may have been issued in 1984. Later there is reference to this same passport being renewed in 1989 and valid until 1994. Therefore, if the passport is valid for 5 years, the picture used would be contemporary, and presumably, also from that time the passport was issued - 1984. So, what are Marquise and Henderson so concerned about the photo being undated and going back to the late seventies?

4865-6:

"[Q] Could we have on the screen now, please, Production 1771....How does the passport photograph on the passport compare with the photograph that you included in the photo spread of the man called Abdelbaset?

A I would say it's the same photograph."

 

[Bunntamas]

OK, so that confirms that the whole passport with the picture we're calling the Abdusamad photo is indeed in the name of Abdusamad.

That passport with Megrahi's photo, and the name Abdusamad has been all over the web for years. And you criticize me for not being well versed on the case? Sheesh.

Surely most people have a new photo taken for a new passport?

Most people don't have false passports. It's a criminal offense; punishable in the UK with 10 years in prison - Megrahi served less time than that for murdering 270 people.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...sion_of_false_identity_documents_with_intent/

~ B.

 

[Bunntamas]

That photo seems so unlike him, I'd have been surprised if he'd actually been allowed to travel on it without at least some query. Rolfe.

Megrahi himself, in an artilcle by Marcela Mega, linked from Robert Black's blog says:

"...as an Libyan Arab Airlines employee and as someone well known in Tripoli and at the airport in Malta, I could get away without using a passport or an identification card but simply by wearing my LAA uniform. This may sound ridiculous but it is true. If I wanted to do something clandestine in such a way, there would be absolutely no record at all of me going from Tripoli to Malta and back again."

.

Kinda puts a wrinkle in that so-called high security at Luqa.

 

[Bunntamas]

Sorry, meant to type Marcello Mega. Not Marcela.

 

[Rolfe]

That passport with Megrahi's photo, and the name Abdusamad has been all over the web for years. And you criticize me for not being well versed on the case? Sheesh.

Indeed. But as you may have noted, some things Matt said made it reasonable to question whether we were all on the right page, and as I said, I can't read Arabic. But the BBC article confirmed it was indeed the Abdusamad passport. I expect I saw it other places as well, but it never hurts to double-check.

Most people don't have false passports. It's a criminal offense; punishable in the UK with 10 years in prison - Megrahi served less time than that for murdering 270 people being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...sion_of_false_identity_documents_with_intent/

~ B.

Megrahi didn't have a false passport, and you know that perfectly well. It was a coded diplomatic passport, legally issued to him by Libya for whatever diplomatic/undercover reasons there are.

The USA does exactly the same thing when CIA agents and so on are sent abroad under cover. Provides them with legal passports bearing false names. So does everywhere else, come to that.

So don't come out with this nonsense about a "false passport", when it wasn't.

Rolfe.

 

[Bunntamas]

I worte this: Most people don't have false passports. It's a criminal offense; punishable in the UK with 10 years in prison - Megrahi served less time than that for murdering 270 people

I did NOT write

[for]being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Please don't change my posts or their meaning. I said what I said and I meant what I said.

 

[Bunntamas]

Megrahi didn't have a false passport, and you know that perfectly well. It was a coded diplomatic passport, legally issued to him by Libya for whatever diplomatic/undercover reasons there are.

Call it whatever you will. It was a passport issued to him under a false name. He was employed by LAA and allegedly traveling for business purposes for LAA, even using his LAA discount at the hotel in Slima. This is NOT a diplomatic reason for using a FALSE passport, hence committing FRAUD.

The USA does exactly the same thing when CIA agents and so on are sent abroad under cover. Provides them with legal passports bearing false names. So does everywhere else, come to that.

Everywhere else? You're kinda reaching there. Right, others WORKING FOR THE GOVERNMENT, and conducting governmental business undercover may use diplomatic passports. So, now what was it Megrahi was doing whilst traveling under a false passport again? Working for the government? Checking out someone to build his staircase? Buying parts? Working for LAA? Or planting a bomb? I, the courts, and many others think it was the latter. Clearly we disagree on that last one, but that is a bit of a rhetorical point, isn't it.

So don't come out with this nonsense about a "false passport", when it wasn't.

Charming. You're losing it a bit here. Suggest you take a breath darling.