The appellant’s written Grounds of Appeal are not a public document. It follows that while the grounds are being discussed in court, those sitting in the public benches find it very difficult to follow the proceedings. These persons include representatives of the press, law students, humble bloggers and, by far the most important, relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster. These last have expressed to me the deep sense of exclusion that they feel when numbered grounds of appeal are discussed while they themselves are in complete ignorance of what issues these numbered grounds relate to.
I appreciate that the Grounds of Appeal are a very lengthy document and contain legal argument as well as mere bald specification of appeal points. If it is thought undesirable that the document in this form be in the public domain, would it not be possible for a summary (perhaps confined to the headings and sub-headings of the various grounds) to be made public? This would be greatly appreciated by the relatives and would be of immense value to the press and to bloggers in their mission to provide accurate and useful information and commentary on the proceedings.
I respectfully invite the court and the parties to give consideration to this proposal.
Dear Bob,
ReplyDeleteI'm tickled by the proviso put forward by the Crown, that some witness statements may give rise to Public Interest Immunity Certificates - (Gagging Orders) - on the grounds that their content may cause risk to Britain's national security interests.
Those who have studied the Lockerbie trial know of a glaring attempt - by unjustified censorship - to protect "national security interests". In that case, the interests of the United States.
Late in the trial, on 1st June 2000, two members of the prosecution team were invited to a secret meeting in the basement of the American Embassy in the Hague, Holland. At that meeting they were shown an un-censored version of a CIA record of an interview with the prosecution's star witness, Majid Giaka.
Up to that time, only a censored version had been available to the court. Eventually the uncensored version was obtained by the defence team and laid before the judges on 22nd August 2000.
It revealed that the CIA had until then concealed Giaka's overwhelming motive to provide false evidence - to lie - to the court.
To justify the blacking-out of the section in the censored version of the CIA record, the censor had written in long-hand in the margin the words "Filing details".
In addition, over the intervening two months the Crown prosecution had concealed the secret meeting and the existence of the uncensored record on the grounds that they were "assessing whether the censored section had any bearing on the defence case." (Source: Trial Transcript)
As the witness statements for the Second Appeal are assembled, a substantial number of them will be laid - together with a set of PII recommendations and briefing notes - on the desk of the British Foreign Secretary.
Knowing the history of the Foreign Office in these matters, am I right to fear that chicanery similar to the Giaka fiasco could well be on the horizon?
What was even more disturbing about the 'Giaka cables' was the fact that the then Lord Advocate (Lord Colin Boyd QC) ASSURED their Lordships that (a)there was nothing in the 'redacted' (censored)portions that would be of use to the defence and (b) kept on increasing the number of CIA cables regarding Giaka as more and more became apparent.
ReplyDeleteThe day after Giaka's first spell in the witness box, (behind screens with his voice electronically altered, the media, (of which I was part) heard of allegations made by the two international observers, regarding serious concerns that the witness (Giaka) appeared to be constantly looking at two representatives of the US Department of Justice PRIOR to answering most of the contenious questions from either of the two defence Advocates.
I strongly urge anyone seriously interestedin this case to carefully read the 82page 'judgement document' wherein their Lordships stated reservations as to the veracity and credability of his evidence.
Dear Professor Dr. Robert Black
ReplyDeletePlease can you confirm mine investigation result to the public? Only this simple balance:
Luggage items loaded and transport on flight PA-103/A, from Frankfurt to Heathrow:
Total 136 pieces,
(guarantee on BKA Rapport ST 33-068507/88 of 2.July 1990) consisting of:
Accompanied passenger of luggage items, according to passenger/baggage list C140V: 119 pieces. (Zeist prod.199).
Una-ccompanied luggage items: 17 pieces, according to load list PA-103/A, KIK computer printout, TADD 881221, police ref. DW 135). (via the baggage conveyancing system FRA)
86 bag items registered on the KIK computer printout TADD 881221, have a code between
S-0500 to S-0600 + time (via checking counter airport Frankfurt, FRA)
Thanks,
Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd Switzerland
Dear Edwin Bollier,
ReplyDeleteIn your evidence at Zeist you admitted previous relationships BOTH with the LIbyan Intelligence Services AND a person whom you believed to have been an agent of the CIA.
Your attempt to involve Professor BLack and his totally objective website is, both disingenuous and unnecessary.
Your various claims SHOULD be made by you within Scottish jurisdiction and should be accompanied by INDEPENDENT verification and, thereafter you and your claims should be subject to rigourous examination and cross-examination on oath.
Mr. Megrahi has appointed an excellent new defence team, theScottish Criminal Cases Review Commission carried out a superbe review of all of the defence submissions and other evidence and found, in fact, AN ADDITIONAL FOUR grounds for appeal.
Your many claims and counter claims, taken against your 'expectations' of up to $200 MILLION reward from Libya for 'assistance' in the obtaining of Mr. Megrahi's release merelyserve to (a) confuse the public (b)annoy objective observers and (c) possibly damage Megrahi's case for appeal.
Shakespeare said 'methinks that man protesteth to much' and they apply perfectly to you, your activities and your claims....
The truth to hear makes pain...
ReplyDeleteREQUEST FOR THE WITNESS STATEMENTS
ReplyDeleteWhy did Margaret Scott QC make the request for the witnesses statements not earlier?
The defense has enough determining defence evidence from MEBO Ltd. to win Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi's second Appeal and to prove his innocence.
An examination of 1160 witnesses statements extends unnecessarily the time for the beginning of the appeal and increases excessively the process costs of the defence lawyers; everything at the expenses of Libya's and at the cost off Mr. Megrahi's health and freedom! Dubious...
For determining information from police protocol of included witnesses in connection with the PanAm 103 assassination attempt and the conspiracy against Libya, must be examined at maximum 40 purposeful witness statements and again evaluated depending upon need.
In addition statements of experts and specialists preferably belong of police, explosive expert, transportation specialist of the Baggage Conveyance system at airport Frankfurt, electronics engineer and psychologist etc., how:
1.> Statements of ex FBI Spezial Agent of Task Force, Richard A.
Marquise, USA. (and DNS-test of Marquise on the FBI offer-brochure, "REWARD UP TO
$ 4MILLION" for any information.
Brochure handed over to Edwin Bollier, Feb. 1991 in its office
by the FBI headquarters, at Washington.
2.> Statements of Commissioner Hans Jürgen Fuhl (ex Crown Witness No.566) from the German Federal Criminal Investigations Bureau (BKA);
3.> Statement from Kurt Maier, Bags X-Rayed (ex Crown Witness No. 810);
4.> Statement from Klaus Wunderlich, Baggage conveyyance System (Crown Witness No.835);
5.> Edwin Bollier, Owner MEBO Ltd, MST-13 Timer (ex Crown Witness No.548);
6.> Ing. Ulrich Lumpert, MST-13 Timer (ex Crown Witness No.550);
7.> Vice Director, Johannes Brosamle, MST-13 Timerfragment,
Siemens AG, Munchen ,Germany (ex Crown Witness No.);
8.> Statement from FBI- Expert Tomas Thurman USA;
9.> Experte Dr. Thomas Hayes- RARDE, MST-13 Timer, (ex Crown
Witness No.586);
8.> Chief Inspector William Williamson, sworn statement (ex Crown Witness No. 994);
9.> The statement of witness Detective, Kathrina Thomson, Scottish Police, Dumfries;
10.> Police Inspector Keith Harrower,(ex Crown Witness No. 261);
11.> Experte Allen Feraday, RARDE. (ex Crown Witness No.355);
12.> Detectiv, Witness Michael Langford-Johnson, (ex Crown Witness No.118) MST-13 Timer;
13.> Erwin Meister, ex Participate of MEBO Ltd, MST-13 Timer (ex Crown
Witness No.);
14.> Ben Hassan Badri, Comp. ABH, Tripoli Libya, Police Statements;
15.> Statements of Tony Gauci, Shopkeeper Marys House, Malta
(ex Crown Witness No,);
16.> Police statements of Yassir Mahmoud Abdel Bari, ex Tripoli, Libya;
17.> Statements of Witness Linda Mack, UK;
18.> Report of Professor Dr. Hiltmar Schubert from the Fraunhofer Institut in Munich, Germany, Explosives;
19.> Detective Inspector Michael Langford-Johnson, Strathclyde police, (ex Crown Witness no. 118);
20.> FBI Legal Attache, Robert M. Fanning USA, Statements (ex Crown
Witness No.);
21.> Statements of Dr. Alan George London UK;
22.> Mr.Alan Worrol, Ferranti Computer Company (ex Crown Witness
No. 581);
23.> Police Statements of Msr Decky Horten, (ex Crown Witness No.);
24.> Scottish Detective Superintendent James Gilchrist ( ex Crown Witness No.);
25.> Stephan Haines, the RARDE photographer (ex Crown Witness No.);
26.> Commissioner, Peter Flückiger, Swiss federal police BUPO (ex Crown Witness No. 567);
27.> Giaka, Abd al Majid (Aka Majid, Abdul al) CIA agent (ex Crown Witness No.);
28.> Mr Orr, John SIO, Criminal Investigation Div. Glasgow UK, all
statements;
29.> All Statements of public Prosecutor at Frankfurt, Mr. Volker Rath;
30.> Gunther Kasteleiner, FAG, traffic assistant, division FA11, handling central control station. Frankfurt Airport (ex Crown Witness number 799);
31.> Mr. Weidmann Fall Church Minn. CIA USA (police protocol)
31.> Statements on telephon monitoring protocols; special monitored telephone calls between Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. and Mr Ali, driver in Tripoli Libya, over the order for a blue baby overalls for its baby son (xxxxxxxxx coded);
32.> All photos from the test explosions at Atlantic City, USA by Feraday and Thurman, on containers, Radio-recorder Toshiba BomBeat, RT8016/SF16; Samsonite Silhouette 4000 suitcases, photographed by Stephan Haines, RARDE. This photos were not in the hand on the court in Kamp van Zeist!
Excerps: Q- Did he photograph the results of these tests? A-
(Feraday) he did indeed, sir.Yes. Q- And do you know where these
photographs are now, Mr. Feraday? A- well, they were certainly at
Fort Halstead when I last saw them, and all the negatives are there.
33.> Police protocol of Mr. Graf, had heard or seen anything about the incident. A smoke came from a suitcase on December 21st at
13'01, shortly befor the baggage from AirMalta flight KM-180 was
coded, near counter V3, no. 206 (Incident entry numbered 54129
in the FAG security log)
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland
David,
ReplyDeleteYou always seem to support the judges when in many people's view the judges' decision was politically motivated. Interestingly, just one month before the trial two of the judges became members of the Privy Council, which Gerald James describes as "allied with the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the Cabinet and Cabinet Intelligence Unit which is the real control over the security and intelligence services are part of the secret permanent unaccountable Government." It is not unusual for judges to make unjust decisions which hide the illegal activities of the secret services in the UK.
So David, I just wonder if you have any particular interest in supporting the judges?
Dear Ruth,
ReplyDelete1: I have NO INTEREST whatsoever in supporting the original trial or 1st. Aopeal verdict which I do NOT agree with in any way.
2: I was one of the first to describe the verdict as 'unbelieveable' (2 Vandaag television [and several others] minutes within the cerdicts being delivered)
3: I have consistently maintained that I did not, do not nor ever will accept the verdict of guilt.
4: What I (and many others both within the relatives groups and respected researchers into the whole disgusting saga) DO have very, very serious probelms with the activities and claims by Edwin Bollier, Eric Lumpert and others in the sure and certain knowledge that that are constantly confusing the issues.
5: A close reading of the transcript and the 82 page judgement document will display the grounds of serious and international doubting of Mr. Bollier. (I have already pointed out to him dealing with various intelligence agencies and his expectations of $200 MILLION reward)
6: When the warrants for Megrahi and Fimah were proclaimed in Edinburgh, senior police sources claimed that originally THREE warrants had been prepared - the third one with Bolliers name on it!
We were later told that pressure either from the US(!) or Switzerland resulted in it being withdrawn!
7: The conduct of the presiding judge at the trial was highly questionable. The conduct of the Crown during the trial was disgraceful. The conduct of the defence of Megrahi during the trial was disgraceful.
8: PLEASE NOTE that we now know that grounds one and two of the appeal refer to the 'reasonableness of the verdict' and ground 4 refers to possible defective or inadequate representataion. We know that serious questions remain over the witness Tony Gaucci and the application for criminal records is intriguing to put it mildly.
In closing, dear Ruth, HAD THE ORIGINAL DEFENCE TEAM of Bill Taylor QC (Now retired) and Alastair Duff (Now a Sheriff (Judge) in Dundee) had been properly conducted, why are the 'new' defence team asking for a veritable mountain of material THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO HAND AT THE ORIGINAL TRIAL.
For the avoidance of doubt, Ruth, I hold the original judges, the original Crown team {including the two mysterious Americans who sat with them) AND Megrahis original defence team responsible for the most monstrous miscarriage of justice in Scotland - EVER!
I also view Mr. Bolliers activities and claims in utter contempt - he has obscured, obfuscated and hindered Megrahi's case at almost every turn and I (and many others) remain intrigued as to (a) his motives (partially answered)(b)who he is working for?
(c) what he intends to achieve? and (d) does he actually realise that his attempted interventions and comments could well DAMAGE Megrahis case!
I trust this clears up any doubt you may have had about me suppoorting the original judges...too many people in the case have been working to their own (hidden) agendas...Truth and Justice...slim chance!