Part 82 of Dr Ludwig de Braeckeleer's series "Diary of a vengeance foretold" on the events leading up to the destruction of Pan Am 103 tells the story of Tony Gauci's part in the Lockerbie investigation and trial. It also explores the related question of payments by the US authorities to witnesses.
The full article can be read here.
The article is very interesting. It demonstrates the 'little' manipulations that take place routinely in trials in the UK which involve state crime such as the hiding or disappearance of interviews and information that would help the defence, prosecution witnesses being rewarded, but worst of all judges blatantly turning a blind eye to vital evidence.
ReplyDeleteVital Evidence? How about Megrahi being in Malta on 12/21/88 on a false passport? That he was employed by the Libyan government (and that government acknowleged to the UN responsibility for its employee's actions in bombing PA103), that he is a close family member of another Libyan terrorist? That Bollier wrote a letter accusing the Libyans of the bombing of PA 103 and personally delivered it to the Embassy in Vienna? That Bollier passed a lie detector test that included affirmative answers to the questions about his knowledge of Libya's involvement in the bombing of PA103? Not to mention Bollier's comment in the recent documentary that he is "hoping" to be paid 200 million by the Libyans for getting Megrahi off. The evidence against Megrahi is far more damning than any of Bollier's lies, or the blather spewed by conspiracy theorists here.
ReplyDeleteToday MEBO can be undoubtedly proved that on the 21th of December 1988 no "bomb bag" was loaded with clothes from the Maltese Shopkeeper Toni Gauci on AirMalta, flight KM-180 at Luqa airport to Frankfurt. Therefore the security visit of Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, alias Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad, to Malta from the 20th to the 21th of December 1988 has nothing to do with a alleged infiltration of a "bomb bag"!
ReplyDeleteNB: The alleged "bomb bag" no B-8849 was not a inter-line bag, transfered in Frankfurt from Air Malta, flight KM-180, to PanAm flight PA-103/A, to London Heathrow.
The bag no. B-8849 was a normal on-line transfer luggage of passenger no. 131, W.WAGENFÜHR, from PanAm flight PA-643 from Berlin Tegel to PanAm flight PA-103/A to Heathrow. Mrs. Wagenführ had checked out the suit-case in London Heathrow. Thus it is secured that this suit-case not transfered on the main flight PA-103 to New York. This was provably represented in the preceding MEBO publications for the FAA.
Apology for my bad English, by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland
Zürich, 10 October 2003
ReplyDeleteoctober
Baggage balance control calculation from PanAm, Flight PA-103/A, up to date 10. October 2003
Baggage:
86 piece's in-line bag's from main checking counter at Frankfurt
+ 13 piece's in-terline transfer bag's, Tray no.B-8042, B-3148, B4573, B-4809, B-6001, B-7418, B-5620, B-5070, B-5203, B-5936, B-3546, B-10773, B-10467, from different flight's, no bag from MaltaAir, flight KM-180
+ 11 piece's on-line transfer bag's, coding as inter-line bag's from PanAm PA-637/639/107, from Berlin-Tegel (TXL), (inclusive 2 bag's, unaccompanied from pilot John Hubbert).
+ 1* piece on-line transfer bag, coding as inter-line bag from PanAm, PA-643, from Berlin-Tegel (TXL), Tray no. B-8849 (Passenger Transfer Message (PTM) Prod.1089 Image 210
*This bag Tray no. (B-8849) not transfer from MaltaAir, KM-180!
____
111 piece's registered on the loading list PA-103/A, FAG/KIK-computer printout.
____
+ 21 piece's on-line bag's from PanAm, flight PA-647, from Berlin-Tegel (TXL), not registered on the KIK-computer printout. (Passenger Transfer Message (PTM) Prod. 1089 Image 212
+ 4 piece's on-line bag's from PanAm, flight PA-649, from Berlin-Tegel (TXL) not registered on the KIK-computer printout. (Passenger Transfer Message (PTM) Prod.1089 Image 216
____
136 Total bag's, laden on PanAm, flight PA-103/A in Airport Frankfurt to London-Heathrow (LHR), at 21.December 1988.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Bollier, 9.2. 2003
They must not be afraid about my objectivity. I come from a neutral country and am likewise neutrally adjusted.
ReplyDeleteAfter the official US/UK accusation 1991, US$ 200 millions was already offered by Libya to all aides and helpers (solicitors incl.) as success-commission for the truth identification in the Lockerbie affair to relieve Libya.
My additional explanations in this connection in the BBC Film "The Conspiracy Files Lockerbie", was suppressed.
My stated defence evidence is facts and these cannot not with money be manipulated. After 18 years I can prove investigations today free of doubts: There was no suit-case to transfer from Malta to Frankfurt and the MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) was manipulated and did not come not from a timer supplied to Libya, etc!
Apology for my bad English, by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
ReplyDeleteNo, he produces facts.
ReplyDeleteNoyb, please explain why disclosure is being withheld by the British government.
the words "facts" and "Bollier" used in the same sentance is an oxymoron. Suggest you read the court documents on reasons for PII. If you're looking for speculation, my guess is that there may be a third party responsible in the bombing of PA103. But that in no way deems Megrahi innocent...based on FACTS presented at the trial, and at his first appeal.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that the documents are being held on grounds of national security. Unfortunately, those two words encompass a wide area. Could it be because the UK, USA or Israel were involved in the bombing and if we found out it might cause a breakdown in national security. The investigation into BAE was stopped because of national security. Was it because the government did not want to expose the vast commissions paid to members of government at the time?
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that the document that caused the PII is not of US or UK origin. There is obviously great speculation about its origin and contents. The bottom line is whether or not the document contains EVIDENCE that may have lead to a miscarriage of justice, or further evidence that he was indeed involved -- no need to spout off on this one Bollier. We've all read -far too many times your stance -- It appears that the Scottish court is doing all they can to ensure that Megrahi's new appeal is fair.
ReplyDeleteIf they really want to show the appeal is fair, release the document.
ReplyDelete