It has been announced by the Scottish Government that its forthcoming Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill will include new rules on the disclosure of evidence. It is to be expected that the new measures will follow the recommendations in the Coulsfield Report. Paragraphs 6.12 to 6.40 of that report contain Lord Coulsfield's consideration of the issue of disclosure of sensitive material, public interest immunity (PII) and "special counsel".
It is not without a measure of irony that the report is the work of one of the judges at the Lockerbie trial in the Scottish Court at Zeist; and that lack of Crown disclosure of material that might have assisted the defence is one of the principal grounds on which the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission decided that Mr Megrahi's conviction might have been a miscarriage of justice.
In the name of the State: The truth (PII) remains
ReplyDeletecovered in a document under national Security...
To prevent international legal assistance from Switzerland and the potential disgrace for the Scottish justice system and to divert at the same time from the explosive affidavit of Lumpert, the newspaper "The Herald" communicated on the 3rd of October 2007 that behind ground 5 of the SCCRC-report a top secret classified document "under national security" was hidden and that its content is about the MST-13 timer. This after the editor of the Herald was feeded with information from the secret and unpublished 800 pages report of the commission's findings.
At the first hearing on the 19th of October 2007 the Appeal court in Edinburgh suddenly confirmed after more than 3 months the existence of a document "under national security"; but keeps ist content closed.
Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini QC agreed on the 20th of February 2008 to open the secret document but the UK Government by Advocate General Lord Davidson, QC, - Westminster's representative in Scottish matters - refused so and argued that it was not in the public interest to release the secret document. He claimed higher national interests: "The national security was at stake"!!!
Seemingly the content of the document "under national security" (MST-13 timer) is so high-explosive that the national security of Great Britain is at stake !!!
Prosecuting counsel Ronnie Clancy added that the secret document did not originate from the USA or one of ist agencies as the CIA.
For provable special reasons only two countries come into consideration for having passed the document 'under national security' to Great Britain: Switzerland or Germany. Reason: The manipulated "Lockerbie MST-13 timer fragment" did not come from a timer supplied to Libya in 1985/86.
Why the national security in Great Britain would be in danger with the opening of the document?
At least these two ex RARDE experts, Dr.Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday, were involved as officials in the manipulations of the MST-13, (PT/35) fragment and the falsifications in the examination report page 51, photo PP8932, PI/995, memorandum to Insp.William Williamson, etc.
At least this two officials experts were responsible for the deliberately wrong accusation by linking the MST-13 fragment to Libya and the PanAm 103 Tragedy. In reality the crown wants to protect Hayes and Feraday. They are a real problem for the public security in Great Britain, why?
Who gave the ex RARDE experts Dr.Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday the order to falsifications evidence in context with the MST-13 (PT/35) fragment? Came the order from the state?
If RARDE experts Dr.Thomas Hayes and Allen Feraday acted in the name of the state remains covered until the police will prosecute these two officials for falsification of evidence.
This is the true reason for the non-disclosure of the document "under national security" (PII) ...
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd
Mr.Bollier, is, as always extremely quick to comment on postings on this site. He appeares dedicated to the finding of truth and justice and it should be remembered that, at the trial in the Netherlands,
ReplyDeleteHE admitted making and supplying MST 13 timers to theEast Germans and the Libyans.
HE admitted maintaining contact with a'mysterious American' who approcahed him out side his Swiss Office days after the bombing.
HE admitted in a recent documentary to having expectations of up to $200 MILLION reward from the Government of Libya for 'freeing Megrahi'!
Mr.Bollier has always been quick to comment on Scots Law despite showing a lamentable lack of knowledge of it at the trial.
Mr. Bollier fails to confirm the simple fact that the vagarities of Swiss law(Federal) and the Swiss Constitution actively hindered the investigation to protect his rights!
I'm sure the prospect of up to $200 MILLION reward in no way affects his point of view or impartiality?
I find it quite refreshing that he is open about his expectations.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr DavidBen-Aryeah
ReplyDeleteHold back your "wish criticism" and wait for the revised judgement of the Appeals.
Libya, Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi and MEBO are provable on the safe side.
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd