Tony Gauci and the mystery shopper

[Rolfe]

Oh, well done. Goodness, if you showed that to anyone and asked which was likely to be the picture of the suspect, I think they'd get it.

Rolfe.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh, well done. Goodness, if you showed that to anyone and asked which was likely to be the picture of the suspect, I think they'd get it.

Rolfe.

We can't rule out that it's just the knowledge of which photo matters. But I had the same impression, or one to the same effect. For one, it's the smallest photo, and stands out there. It's degraded, but so are the others. The one next to it is just scratched. And second smallest in that row, giving it a slight bullet shape sort of "pointing" to him.

Second, follow the 'fros. Only a few have remotely the right hair and the right contrast to stand out. When I squint and focus on the dark patches that I know are hair (filtering out the upper right corner), it seems to form a sort of arrow this time, again, pointing to Megrahi.

Huh?

What did you mean?

 

[Rolfe]

I think you let your imagination run away with you on that last bit.

But mainly I note that the picture that's supposed to be Megrahi is quite clearly a different size from the others (why couldn't they have blown it up or shrunk the others?) and quite clearly the poorest, most grainy quality. Especially the fold across the middle.

I admit Tony was never the sharpest knife in the drawer, but the possibility that they included this photo (in spite of it being so bad) BECAUSE it was the one they were interseted in, might cross the dimmest mind when looking at that array.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

You know, it could be interesting to try this fun game at home. Show the entire photospread to people who know nothing at all about the case, and ask them one of two questions.

• Which picture do you think stands out as different from the rest?
• If you had to guess, which picture do you think is most likely to be the suspect?

I'd take a moderate bet that number 8 would get a very high proportion of the votes to both questions, especially the first. It might be necessary to add that the suspect is not in custody to be a completely comparable test though.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I've re-written the article on the identification process to include the photospread. As always, comments welcome.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Tap, tap.... Is this thing on?

Remember Paul Foot said the tip-off that alerted the investigation to Megrahi as a possible suspect came from Edwin. The Scottish investigators said the info came from the FBI. Richard, however, who is of course "the FBI", has an interesting story.

The first mention of Megrahi's name in his book is during an account of a meeting with the CIA in London in early December 1990, when his was just one of a number of names provided, along with the information about the 7th December visit to Malta. At that time they did not have a photo of him to show to Tony Gauci.

The subsequent events are recounted in a disjointed manner and out of sequence. However Marquise indicates that they did get hold of an undated photo of him (presumably the Czech photo) and had arranged to show this to Tony on 15th February 1991. He doesn't say when they got it, or how, and he doesn't mention the staple-photo.

He also recounts the arrangements to interview Edwin, in Washington, at the same time, 12th to 15th February. With a polygraph, the unreconstructed woo. The polygrapher decides Edwin is telling the truth. Why am I not surprised about that. After the end of the interview process, Marquise recounts that Edwin was shown "the drawing" of the clothes purchaser, and he volunteered that this image (which he had been shown before but in a bad photocopy which is why he hadn't recognised it) "resembled a man he knew as Abdel Baset Ali al Megrahi".

After that, Marquise phoned Henderson to tell him that Edwin had recognised Tony's image as Megrahi, at which point Henderson told him that Tony had identified Megrahi as the clothes purchaser (from the Czech photo) earlier that day. The Scottish team was already "having a celebratory drink" about it.

This does not fit with what Bell said about asking Edwin which was the better likeness of the two photos. Which would have had to have happened before the 15th anyway. It does fit to some extent with what Edwin told Caustic Logic (sorry can't find the exact post) which was that he was shown an exact tracing of Megrahi's passport photo.

Marquise is really annoying. Bits of that book are almost as if he'd had a lot of facts and snippets on index cards, and just arranged them in what looked like the best order, and called it a book. He seems to introduce Megrahi as a new player at least three times. No editor named. I'm beginning to wonder if it's just another piece of vanity publishing, like Crawford, except he's not quite so illiterate so you don't realise so quickly.

Anyway, this all sounds really fishy. How would it be possible to recognise Megrahi from the artist's impression? If Edwin thought he was being shown a tracing of Megrahi's passport photo, wouldn't it have been the photofit he'd have been referring to? How could you recognise Megrahi from either image, really?

Somebody is playing silly buggers, but I'm damned if I know who and how.

Rolfe.

 

[CTB]

Of course the original of the Czech photo has never been made available. I genuinely wonder what it would look like, if it was ever recognisable as the man himself.

Rolfe.

This photo has always bugged me. Until I started reading a couple of the threads here I'd always assumed that the picture bore a resemblance to Megrahi at some point in his life.
It doesn't look like Megrahi at all, but it must be him, otherwise he'd have said so.
It looks, to me, the most like the original artist sketch ( a handy aide-memoir for Mr Gauci )which is like no sketch of a 50+yrs male you're ever likely to see.

The police were definitely playing silly buggers with this.


- CTB

 

[Rolfe]

Welcome to the forum, CTB!

I queried with people in JFM whether it was possible that picture wasn't even of Megrahi, but it was pointed out that Megrahi himself was closely involved in every aspect of the second appeal and there doesn't seem to be any record of him saying the picture wasn't of him. Some people here have claimed to see a resemblance, but I can't see it myself. I've even tried changing the aspect ratio to see if a likeness emerges, and it doesn't seem to. To be quite honest if that was his regular passport photo I'm surprised they allowed him to travel on it! It's also mildly strange that a better print has never emerged.

The oddity is that Megrahi is someone who doesn't seem to have changed much as he aged through his twenties and thirties, or even his forties. Apart from a photo taken at Zeist where he was wearing Arab dress and a little black cap, I've been able to recognise him in every picture I've seen of him, from his Cardiff student ID card even to the recent ones of him while he was on chemotherapy. And I've never clapped eyes on him in my life. But that single weird photo that was shown to Tony, I can't make that Megrahi any way I look at it.

This strange and contradictory tale of what was shown to Edwin and when and why is also peculiar. Bell at one point (11th February I think) spoke of needing to find out which of the two photos they had was the best likeness, and asking Edwin. But it's unclear that Edwin was asked because that note is made on 11th February and Edwin was in Washington being polygraphed from 12th to 15th February. (And Sheriff Mowatt was issuing the findings of the FAI on 14th February, it was all go that week....)

Richard says nothing about showing anything to Edwin until the formal interviewing is over, and then it's Tony construct (or one of them) he is shown, not either of the photographs. I think the claim to recognise either of these constructs as Megrahi is ludicrous, quite honestly, but that's what Richard claims Edwin did.

Edwin claims the drawing he saw was an exact tracing of a photgraph of Megrahi. Which makes my head hurt, but it certainly fits better with Richard's version than with Harry Bell's.

I'm sure there's some dirty dealing going on here, if we could only figure out what.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I noticed something else in Richard's book, regarding the staple-Abdusamad photo.

Pete2 pointed out that the investigators didn't have the Abdusamad passport until Megrahi brought it to Zeist with him. And it would seem not even then, because Richard is still dementing on in November 1999 about not having conclusive proof that Megrahi was Abdusamad. This would presumably mean they had not seen the Abdusamad passport photo at that point, because that would have settled it. It's the same bloody photo as the one they had been using since November 1991 to identify Megrahi to the world.

However, in his book Richard mentions seeing the Abdusamad passport on-screen during the Salinger interview of November 1991 - he notes the stamp recording a visit to Malta in December 1988. What's that all about? If Megahi was denying being Abdusamad at that point, why would he be waving Abdusamad's passport around? Especially as it had a recognisable (if old) photo of himself in it? (I've only seen occasional clips from that interview, shown to prove that Megrahi told lies to Salinger, therefore he must be a mass murderer. Never the whole thing.)

It would be interesting to know if the passport photo was ever visible onscreen. If so, that should have clinched it forever. Here was Abdusamad's passport, and the photo in it was another print of the same photo they'd just used to identify Megrahi in the indictment papers....

I'd still dearly love to know where that staple photo materialised from, and when.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The timeline is a little odd too. The way Richard tells it, Megrahi's name first came up through intelligence channels, dating back to Giaka first mentioning him as a JSO officer before the bombing. They were interested in him because he had visited Malta on 7th December, the day they had decided the clothes were bought.

Why did they decide the clothes were bought on 7th December and not 23rd November? Apparently, because Megrahi was in Malta that day.

I don't think Richard is telling this straight. Again, somebody is playing silly buggers. I have a suspicion it was the CIA, feeding the FBI the information it wanted them to have to point them in the direction it wanted them to go. Baer has hinted as much. UNfortunately I don't see any sign of anyone in the CIA writing indiscreet memoirs.

Rolfe.

 

[CTB]

Welcome to the forum, CTB!


Edwin claims the drawing he saw was an exact tracing of a photgraph of Megrahi.
Rolfe.

Thanks for the welcome, Rolfe!

yes, Mr Bollier's way with English sure is exasperating. I think what he's saying here is photocopy. I don't know 'bout Schwitzer-Deutsch, but photocopy in German is Fotokopie. As with lots of new-fangled inventions the pronunciation ends up the same with the spelling suiting the lay of the land. Eddie's got some interesting and relevant stuff to say, but it's not easy picking out the bits that are helpful.

The staples of the 'staple' photo are kinda weird. It looks like he's sitting underneath a giant staple in a wall. Perhaps it's just an effect of the souped-up contrast, but the toppermost frizzy bit of his barnet seems to be in front of the staple. I'm just going to have to assume that it's a scan of some, hitherto, unknown to me document.

I could go with the questionable/isn't him photo as pretty much anything can happen to scaling on a photocopier if you're not careful, or have a crap photocopier. In this case it's 'plumped' him, but the nose still looks wrong. ( and his top-lip and his left ear, but hey, it does fit with the 'resembles, but not really' line Gauci pretty much maintained throughout.)

The Polis seemed to have just stopped short of directly telling Gauci which one to pick. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not aware of sub/un concious signals they were probably sending Gauci's direction. Tony earns his dosh, and the boys go for a well earned drink.

I've never met any D&G police, but assume they're much like Stratchclyde or Lothian & Borders. An attitude I've come across ( from ex members of the force, speaking of their days ) on more than one occasion is of single-minded pursuit. If they've gone to all that bother to pin someone for something then that person is guilty regardless, it's the bloody lawyers that stuff it up. It's not exactly 'bent' but could explain the feel of someone playing silly buggers.

Organisations like the CIA and FBI, I would imagine, are purposely set up along the lines of making sure the left and right hands are unaware of each other. Transparency is not part of the remit. It's only when the organisation itself takes a hit that it forms what looks like a united front. Sharing info and getting the story straight, as seen in the Lockerbie investigation, then proves to be bloody tricky. External scrutiny is never really expected.

CTB

 

[Rolfe]

Thanks for the welcome, Rolfe!

yes, Mr Bollier's way with English sure is exasperating. I think what he's saying here is photocopy. I don't know 'bout Schwitzer-Deutsch, but photocopy in German is Fotokopie. As with lots of new-fangled inventions the pronunciation ends up the same with the spelling suiting the lay of the land. Eddie's got some interesting and relevant stuff to say, but it's not easy picking out the bits that are helpful.

That's a point. The post was written in English, because it was a direct reply to a question from Caustic Logic, so we don't know what the German word was he was thinking of. I never quite know what to think about Edwin's English. His history makes it terribly unlikely he wouldn't have good English, but he's incomprehensible.

The staples of the 'staple' photo are kinda weird. It looks like he's sitting underneath a giant staple in a wall. Perhaps it's just an effect of the souped-up contrast, but the toppermost frizzy bit of his barnet seems to be in front of the staple. I'm just going to have to assume that it's a scan of some, hitherto, unknown to me document.

There's a matching picture of Fhimah - same background, same size, same staple. I wonder if they're file copies of some sort of identity document, with the pictures stapled to the filing cards. I'd have said passport, except that doesn't seem to have been Megrahi's passport photo. I wonder how old the picture is. In sequence, it doesn't seem that much older than the student ID picture.

I need to read up more about the visit to the passport office in Tripoli someone was describing, in 1991. You'd think they'd have got copies of both suspects' passport photos then. But why didn't they get Abdusamad's passport photo then too? But if they had that staple-photo in February, they didn't get it there.

Sorry, I'm not making much sense here.

I could go with the questionable/isn't him photo as pretty much anything can happen to scaling on a photocopier if you're not careful, or have a crap photocopier. In this case it's 'plumped' him, but the nose still looks wrong. ( and his top-lip and his left ear, but hey, it does fit with the 'resembles, but not really' line Gauci pretty much maintained throughout.)

That's why I tried stretching and squeezing it on the computer, but I couldn't make it look like Megrahi to my eyes.

Thinking again about the passport office visit, surely they got copies of both suspects' passport photos then? But if they did, and that was Megrahi's own passport photo, it's odd we've never seen a better copy. I suppose it's possible that the pair of staple photos are from the passport office, but that would suggest Megrahi just used the same photo in both his own and the Abdusamad passport, and it was quite an old photo, and if so where the hell did the Czech photo come from?

There may be a simple explanation for all this but I wish I knew what it was.

The Polis seemed to have just stopped short of directly telling Gauci which one to pick. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they were not aware of sub/un concious signals they were probably sending Gauci's direction. Tony earns his dosh, and the boys go for a well earned drink.

Maybe they weren't, but it was something that was known about, if not then, then soon after. But from Crawford's description of his own reactions, Tony would have had to be pond life not to pick up on his signals.

I've never met any D&G police, but assume they're much like Stratchclyde or Lothian & Borders. An attitude I've come across ( from ex members of the force, speaking of their days ) on more than one occasion is of single-minded pursuit. If they've gone to all that bother to pin someone for something then that person is guilty regardless, it's the bloody lawyers that stuff it up. It's not exactly 'bent' but could explain the feel of someone playing silly buggers.

I have heard that Megrahi himself is quite incandescent with rage against Harry Bell, whom he believes railroaded him. I think that's part of the attitude you mention. But the Scottish police weren't really running the inquiry. They were operating it under Scots law, but the FBI and behind them the CIA were pulling the strings. How much the inquiry was manipulated to go after the suspects the CIA wanted to be blamed, I'm not sure.

Organisations like the CIA and FBI, I would imagine, are purposely set up along the lines of making sure the left and right hands are unaware of each other. Transparency is not part of the remit. It's only when the organisation itself takes a hit that it forms what looks like a united front. Sharing info and getting the story straight, as seen in the Lockerbie investigation, then proves to be bloody tricky. External scrutiny is never really expected.

It's been said several times that the CIA only passes to the FBI what it deems prudent. Because the FBI want stuff that will stand up in court, and the CIA don't especially want to release secret-type material. I could easily imagine the CIA administering a drip-feed of information and clues that would eventually lead in the direction they had chosen.

Rolfe.

 

[pete2]

Here's the entire conversation between Caustic Logic, Edwin Bollier and myself, this time with the German left in:

pete said...

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?

Herr Bollier:
als Sie in Februar 1991 in Amerika waren, DCI Bells Tagebuch zufolge, hat man Ihnen einige Fotos gezeigt, in der Hoffnung dass Sie in der Lage wäre, sie zu identifizeren.

Herr Bell schrieb dass die Amerikaner Sie zwei Fotos von Megrahi gezeigt hatten, und dass Sie haben einer der Fotos, "nummer 18", in dem er einen Anzug und einer Krawatte trug, als gute Abbild von Megrahi ausgewählt. Könnten Sie für uns das zweite Foto beschreiben? Es wundert mich, dass es ein schlechteres Bild gab als das Foto, das man im 15.2.91-Fotoschau verwendet hat.

ebol said...

Attn. pete
MISSION LOCKERBIE:

Bei meinem Besuch bei FBI in Washington 1991, wurden mir im Laufe meiner Befragungen ein Porträt- Photo von Abdelbaset Al Megrahi gezeigt.( No.?) Ich erkannte Al Megrahi zweifelsfrei. Parallel dazu wurde mir ein Robotphoto (No.?) gezeigt, welches nahezu 100% dem ersten Porträt glich !

Ich war erstaunt und sagte zu meinen USA-Begleter, FBI Attache Rober Fanning, dass das Robotbild praktisch gleich nachgezeichnet war wie das original Photo-Bild...
Ich wollte hören was er dazu sagte.

Er durfte aber keine Antwort geben; also habe ich mich entschlossen nicht zuviel anzunehmen und gab an, das Robotbild entspricht etwa 50% des original Porträts.
Der Interviewer meinte nicht mehr in % ?... Darauf erhöte ich, selbst überzeugt, auf 70%. Der Interviewer sagte o.k. und trug auf einem vorgeschriebenen FBI-Dokument mit angeheftetem Robotbild, 70% ein.

Ob das Robotbild dem, bekannten veröffentlichten FBI "artist rendition" entsprochen hatte, bezweifle ich ! Nach meiner Erinnerung war das Robotphoto-Bild perfekter nach dem Bild von mr.
Al Megrahi,s nachgezeichnet.

pete said...

Edwin's reply:

During my visit to the FBI in Washington in 1991 a portrait photograph of Abdelbasset Al Megrahi was shown to me in the course of my questioning. I recognised Al Megrahi without a doubt. Parallel to that I was shown an identikit picture which was almost a 100% match for the first portrait!

I was astonished, and said to my American handler, FBI Attache Robert Fanning, that the identikit picture was practically a tracing of the original photograph...I wanted to hear what he said to that.

He could not answer; therefore I decided not to assume too much, and stated that the identikit picture was a 50% match for the original picture. The interviewer said, no more that that, as a percentage? On this I increased, being convinced myself, to 70%. The interviewer said ok and entered "70%" on a preprinted FBI document with attached identikit picture.

Whether the identikit picture did correspond to any known published FBI "artist rendition", I doubt it! By my recollection the identikit picture was a perfect tracing of the picture of Mr Al Megrahi.


Herr Bollier,

Nur um ganz deutlich zu sein:
In dem Artikel "Gauci and the Czech Photo" auf diesem Blog, gibt es mehrere Fotos, darunter eine Künstler-Skizze und ein Robotphoto. Können Sie sagen, ob Sie unter ihnen die in Washington gezeigtene Bilder erkennen?

ebol said...

Attn. pete

Die Fotos, das Robotbild und die Zeichnung vom 13.9.89, habe ich vor dem Besuch bei FBI (1991) bereits bei Swiss Police gesehen. Die Foto von Al Megrahi auf dem Ausweis der University of Wales habe ich erstmals dieses Jahr auf DIVIDE gesehen.

Beim FBI habe ich eine gute Porträt Foto von Al Megrahi gesehen und gleichzeitig eine perfekte Zeichnung (nicht Robotfoto). Ich habe zuvor die Zeichnung falsch als Robotfoto bezeichnet. Die Zeichnung von Al Megrahi entsprach fast 100% der Foto Abbildung. Diese Zeichnung habe ich später nicht bei Scottish Police und nicht bei Swiss Police in den Fotobücher gesehen.

Das Polizei-Dokument, welches ich bei FBI (1991) unterschreiben musste, war bis auf die Zahl 70%, mit einem Text ausgefüllt gewesen.
Die Zeichnung, in Postkarten Grösse, wurde zusammen mit der Foto an das Protokoll angeklammert.

by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland, 14.Dec.2010


(Translation, added later: ) Before my visit to the FBI in 1991 I had already seen the photos, the photofit and the drawing of 13.9.89 with the Swiss police. I first saw the University of Wales pass photo this year on DIVIDE.

At the FBI I saw a good portrait photo of Al Megrahi, and at the same time a perfect tracing (not photofit). I have previously described this drawing wrongly as a photofit. The tracing of Al Megrahi corresponded almost 100% to the photographic image. I did not see this tracing later in photospreads with the Scottish police or the Swiss police.

The police-document I had to sign at the FBI was already filled in with text as far as the figure 70%. The tracing, in postcard size, was clipped to it, along with the photograph.

December 13, 2010 5:17 PM
Caustic Logic said...

Ebol, translated:
During my visit to the FBI in Wahington in 1991 a portrait photograph of Abdelbasset Al Megrahi was shown to me in the course of my questioning. I recognised Al Megrahi without a doubt. Parallel to that I was shown an identikit picture which was almost a 100% match for the first portrait!

The photo was the one discussed here, the "Czech photo," correct? This "identikit" image sounds like the "photofit" or "composite face" image? Robotphoto? I'm confused what it is you're saying was such a suspicious match.

Trans:
Das Foto war das, das hier, das " besprochen wurde; Tschechisches Foto, " korrekt? Dieses " identikit" Bild klingt wie das " photofit" oder " zusammengesetztes face" Bild? Robotphoto? I' m verwirrte, was es you' ist; ReSprechen war solch ein misstrauisches Gleiches.

ebol said...

Attn. Gaustic Logic

The photo was the one discussed here, the "Czech photo," correct? No, the "Czech photo" has nothing to do with the drawing in the FBI. The FBI was signed artist rendition of a photograph of Al Megrahi. Passport Porträt
The Czech photo I have only seen on their website DIVIDE.*

best Edwin Bollier

* Bollier in fact posted the 'czech photo' on his own site in 2009, identifying it correctly as Megrahi's passport photograph, so I don't know what he's on about here.

 

[CTB]

"It's been said several times that the CIA only passes to the FBI what it deems prudent. Because the FBI want stuff that will stand up in court, and the CIA don't especially want to release secret-type material. I could easily imagine the CIA administering a drip-feed of information and clues that would eventually lead in the direction they had chosen. "

---Rolfe----

This is something I could believe.

What I was driving at, though, was that within 'services' like the CIA, MI6, JSO, etc, that it's deliberately organised so that any agent in the field does not have the full picture. They investigate and report. Thus making it fairly straightforward to let anyone who steps out of line relatively easy to discredit and/or accuse of unpatriotic and dangersous activity. Ms Lindauer could be an example.

Thanks to Pete2 for the previous post. That's sort of clearer about what Mr Bollier says he saw first time round.

If I've got this right, Mr Bollier is shown a proper photograph of Mr Megrahi by the FBI in 1991.

He then says the next photo is nearly 100% a drawing of the first photo ( which I assume is the one he has just seen ) Then Mr Bollier keeps revising, to one of his interviewers, his %age accuracy until it reaches something acceptable. This is then clipped into a file with the FBI and Mr.Bollier claims never to have seen the image again.

Mr Bollier then says that he'd already seen all the images in 1989, in Switzerland.

To me, all this is a sidetrack. Regardless of personal disquiet over the machinations of secret government orgs I'd be damned surprised if the DOJ did not have a photo of JSO officials, especially if those officials are suspected of sanctions busting.

What I think is happening here is a go at corroboration of evidence, which has to be sought if the case is being progressed under Scots' Law.

I could have the wrong end of the stick entirely. Mr Bollier is in 'salesman' mode a lot of the time. Like any salesman I've ever met, a few clear sentences will never do if there's a hundred bamboozlers that can be used instead and he might sometimes forget which deal exactly that he has settled on. I do think it is worth trying to cut through it.

None of which gets us past the fact that not one of the photos Mr Gauci was shown comes close to matching the clothes-buyer that, we are told, he remembers.


CTB

 

[Rolfe]

I'm very grateful to Pete for posting that. I agree with CTB's last point that no matter what went on at the Bollier end, the identification has to stand or fall on its own merits - and it quite obviously falls on its face. I kind of like my little illustrated article demonstrating that.

However, I'm curious as to what the investigators were up to. I think they were manipulating like mad, to get Gauci to pick the right person from a photospread. And so I want to know what that second photo was, that they had, and they needed to know which was the better likeness, and then suddenly they don't have it at all, they never had it, so they have to go with this unrecognisable smear (that just happens to look a bit like the photofit). And then a photo which seems to be the other one, in living colour, pops up out of nowhere a few months later.

It's a mystery, and mysteries give me a headache.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

As regards what investigators know, that's a fact. It was said by someone that probably only John Orr actually knew all the information that was coming in. A cop would be given a job to do, but he wouldn't necessarily know why, or how it fitted into the rest of what was going on.

A little example. John Crawford helpfully describes in his memoir investigating the group of passengers labelled the "first fifteen", to see if anyone could have been an unwitting mule, or somehow connected with terrorism. We know from elsewhere that the "first fifteen" were all the passengers who interlined directly into Heathrow from various other airlines. It is quite clear from what Crawford writes that he wasn't told that.

It very much gives the lie to the idea that the investigators, at a lower level, could see how the case was progressing and how leads were turning out and how the pattern of the evidence fit together. They couldn't know. They were only told what they were told, and what their superiors wanted them to know.

Rolfe.

 

[CTB]

However, I'm curious as to what the investigators were up to. I think they were manipulating like mad, to get Gauci to pick the right person from a photospread.
Rolfe.

The investigators know that Tony's description over-estimates their favoured suspect by many years. I think they choose the crappy looking photo because it's crappy and old looking. They're trying to nudge him, without explicitly telling him, into thinking " well, of course all these men are too young, but if I add, say, 20 years... "

The easiest photo to do that with is one that looks easily like it's been around for 20 years.

Of course they do end up having to verbally prompt him about adding the years.

CTB

 

[Caustic Logic]

The investigators know that Tony's description over-estimates their favoured suspect by many years. I think they choose the crappy looking photo because it's crappy and old looking. They're trying to nudge him, without explicitly telling him, into thinking " well, of course all these men are too young, but if I add, say, 20 years... "

The easiest photo to do that with is one that looks easily like it's been around for 20 years.

Of course they do end up having to verbally prompt him about adding the years.

CTB

Really good point well made. Now that we see the spread, it's also the smallest photo, even if my arrow notion didn't stand out to Tony like it did to me. The whole thing was already skewed as hell in a dozen ways, and we're past the point of coincidences from sloppiness.

Sorry, not my most brilliant post and I should nod off now. But I'll take the chance also to say welcome, CTB, and thanks for your contributions to this historic discussion.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm also curious about that odd highlight on the left-hand side. It's not there in the copy I swiped from the Valentine expert witness report, and I thought it might be an artefact of the copy shown on TV. However I'm reading Ashton and Ferguson at the moment, and the highlight is there in the photo as they reproduce it.

If what was shown to Tony had that highlight - God help us all!

Rolfe.

 

[CTB]

I'm also curious about that odd highlight on the left-hand side. It's not there in the copy I swiped from the Valentine expert witness report, and I thought it might be an artefact of the copy shown on TV. However I'm reading Ashton and Ferguson at the moment, and the highlight is there in the photo as they reproduce it.

If what was shown to Tony had that highlight - God help us all!

Rolfe.

I hadn't noticed the highlight until you pointed it out. I'll go with printing anomaly for now, thanks.

I've just read through the Valentine report and was entirely floored by Mr Gauci's ID of Mr Megrahi in court. I'm fine with the standard OP of it being a way to determine if a witness is willing to give evidence against the accused, but
how on earth is it acceptable, just before that ID, to show Mr Gauci a magazine article about the trial which has a picture of Mr Megrahi in it?

I mean, fer effsake.

The judges are okay with this?

A CT on drinking water rides into view ( on the back of a Unicorn, natch.)


CTB


ps apologies if this has been discussed already ( the magazine, not the unicorn ) but I haven't got to Mr Gauci's testimony in the trial transcripts yet.