Saturday, 22 November 2008

Unjust Verdict

As a former student of Professor Robert Black, QC, who arranged for the Lockerbie bomber's trial to be held at Camp Zeist, and having researched the case myself, I am still amazed that al-Megrahi was convicted.

It made a mockery of the Scottish judiciary. What happened at Lockerbie was undoubtedly murder, but the tragedy does not sanction the imprisonment of a potentially innocent man to appease American prosecutors and some of the families of the victims.

G. M., by email

[A letter from today's Daily Record. I hasten to add that the Lockerbie case did not feature in my lectures during my tenure as Professor of Scots Law. But I did, I hope, help to turn out students who are capable of recognising a miscarriage of justice when they see one.]


  1. New Lockerbie posts on Professor Dr. Robert Black's lockerbie case blogspot ...

    The great interest for the new Lockerbie blog entitled 'The Masonic Verses' - Lockerbie and Related Scams has to be welcomed.
    The blog takes the form of a critique of the evidences around the bombing of the PanAm flight PA-103 and informs on doubtful proofs.

    MEBO will publish soon on its webpage: and in comments and letters rebutted in a review a lot of evidence in connection with the official Police-und FAA investigations between 1990-2008 used for the wrong accusation of Megrahi and Fimah.

    And a lot of this material was discovered by MEBO Ltd first.
    For examples:
    the manipulated fragment of a MST-13 timer,
    no bomb suit-case from AirMalta (KM-180) transfer to PanAm (PA-103/A) in Frankfurt,
    no blue baby overall sell through shopkeeper Tony Gautci (Mary House),
    the security observation visit,
    of Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, alias Ahmed Khalifa Abdusamad, to Malta (ordered by his chief El Bishari) from the 20th to the 21th of December 1988, have nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy,

    the important distance between the bomb and the skin of the aircraft Boeing 747, (25”), published in the official Air Accident Investigation Report (AAIB) etc.

    Mebo pointed out before start of the process at Kamp van Zeist, on 3May 2000, in a letter to Lord Advocate Colin Boyd, that this distance of 25" indicates that the "Bomb case" was placed before the container AVE 4041 and not in the container (see pictures on
    This was confirmed in a report by explosive expert Professor Dr. Hiltmar Schubert from the Fraunhofer Institut in Munich, Germany!

    The court adjourned for 10 days and brought in a second expert to clarify this question and concluded that the distance was fortuitious ...

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

  2. A doubtful anniversary

    Seventeen years ago, on November 14, 1991 the US of Justice and the Crown Office in Scotland accused two Libyan Officials for murder of the 270 victims of the PanAm 103 disaster !

    On January 31, 2001, Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi was convicted of murder by a panel of three Scottish judges and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The second accused Mr. Lamin Khalifah Fhimah was acquitted.

    Megrahi's appeal against his conviction was refused on March 14, 2002. On September 23, 2003 Megrahi applied to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC) for his conviction to be reviewed, and on 28 June 2007 the SCCRC announced its decision to refer the case to the High Court in Edinburgh after it found he may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

    Mr Abdelbaset al Megrahi's unfortunate destiny was to become Lockerbie victim no. 271 as a political hostage, because the PanAm 103 assassination attempt was used for a conspiracy against Libya.

    Coincidentally and shortly before the 20th anniversary of the tragedy it has been confirmed that only 3 passengers had each 3 luggage items loaded on PanAm flight PA-103/A at Frankfurt airport on Dezember 21, 1988. (Corresponding with the passenger/luggage list, C-140V and FAG KIK TADD 881221 computer printout).

    Thus it is proven that 3 inter-line bags, unknown and unaccompanied, were transported by Lufthansa flight LH-631 from Kuwait and were additionally loaded at Frankfurt on the feeder flight PanAm PA-103/A to London/Heathrow airport!
    Until today remains unexplained to whom these 3 luggage items belonged and whether they were loaded on flight PanAm 103 from London to New York?

    MEBO EXAMINATION. Important:
    From the 124 passengers at Frankfurt who checked in for flight PA-103/A, only 3 passenger had each 3 luggage items, according to the passenger list C140V.

    MEBO cover-up:
    1.>Passenger no.143, T. Walker, actually traveled with his 3 luggage items (3M) with the same flight LH-631 from Kuwait to Frankfurt. Around 15:57 clock at the transit checking counter in Frankfurt airport, Mr. Walker checked in with his 3 luggage items as tray No. B-7056, B-9531,

    2.> Passenger no. 99, K. Noonan had 3 luggage items (3 M): tray No. B-3546, B-10773, B-10467. These luggage items were forwarded over the inter-line counter No. 203;

    3.> Passenger no. 152, J. Waido checked in 3 luggage items (3 M) at the Head Checking Counter in Frankfurt: Tray No. B-3593, B-4120, B-11511.

    Thus it is absolutely clear that the additional 3 inter-line luggage items (trays no. B-4809, B-6001, B-7418 coded over the inter-line counter HM-3) from flight LH-631 arrival from Kuwait and then transfered to flight PA-103/A don't belong to passenger T. Walker as the BKA supposed falsely ! An irresponsible mistake due to the BKA's sloppy investigations.

    RESULT: On the feeder flight PA-103/A from Frankfurt to London-Heathrow not one Samsonite suitcase - the alleged bomb suitcase, from AirMalta, flight KM-180 to PanAm flight PA-103/A - was loaded, but 3 unknown and unaccompanied luggage items from Lufthansa, flight LH-631 from Kuwait, ex tray no. B-4809, B-6001, B-7418!

    It is not clear up today whether this mysterious baggage items were loaded in London-Heathrow on the mainflight, PA-103 to NewYork (JFK). Commissioner Hans Jürgen Fuhl (Crown Witness no. 566) from the German Federal Criminal Investigations Bureau (BKA) testified at Camp van Zeist: "in Heathrow documents were destroyed"…

    Summary of the original testimony of Commissioner Hans Jürgen Fuhl from BKA (Crown Witness 566):

    Other organisations who were investigating the bombing had taken some of the documentation before the BKA could get their hands on it. Fuhl also testified that PanAm had apparently instructed staff at Heathrow to destroy documentation.
    (Ref. Doc.1 Chapter 13 page 38)

    Totally 3 luggage items (2+1) planned for that far transport, were never loaded onto PanAm Main flight PA-103.

    1 unaccompanied on-line luggage item, a brown Samsonite suit-case with rush tags, of PanAm copilot John Hubbard, was never loaded onto PA-103.

    2 inter-line luggage items of Daniel O'Connor (A State department official) were never loaded onto PA-103.

    All 3 bags were found after the atrack on PA-103 into the baggage room at airport Heathrow...

    Questions: How could the load list of the Boing 747, PA-103 be correct, if 3 luggage items were missing?

    Were the 3 luggage items in Heathrow exchanged with the mysterious 3 luggage items from flight LH-631/PA-103/A from Kuwait to Frankfurt to Heathrow, with the 3 luggage items of Daniel O' Connor (2M) and John Hubbard (1M)?

    Had therefore in Heathrow the documents of the PanAm-103 to be destroyed?

    The scottish provocation:

    We are neither pessimistic nor optimistic about Megrahi's appeal, but we are determined to reveal the Scottish miscarriage of justice with our exonerating evidence and thus help to rehabilitate Libya and give Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi his honour back.

    We will prove that Libya and Mr Al Megrahi had absolutely nothing to do with the PanAm 103 bombing !

    A revised judgement in favour of Libya and its official Mr. Megrahi will rise Libya's international reputation and the prestige of Libya's leader Muammar Gaddafi and his son Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, who was a key figure in normalizing Libya's relations with the World and make the international community aware of the unjust UN-embargo against Libya and its people.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

  3. Frankfurt International Airport records for December 21, 1988, had been saved, only by chance, by computer programmer Bogomira Erac, who had kept a copy of the records on the spur of the moment "... in memory of the people who were on the plane".[17] These records were to show that an unaccompanied bag had been routed from Air Malta Flight KM 180 out of Luqa Airport to Frankfurt, where it had been loaded onto Pan Am 103A, the feeder flight to London. A properly marked Air Malta baggage tag would have routed the suitcase through the interline system from Malta to Frankfurt, Frankfurt to London, and London to New York.

    The PA 103 investigators learned that the baggage for Air Malta Flight KM 180 was processed at the same time as the bags for Libyan Arab Airlines Flight 147 to Tripoli. They later discovered that Megrahi had been a passenger on this flight, having arrived in Malta two days earlier using a false passport. As he declined to take the stand during his trial, his explanation for his presence in Malta, and his reason for using a fake ID, was never heard...or explained.

  4. Here is what I said about these issues on the very first post on this blog:

    4. The suitcase which contained the bomb also contained clothes and an umbrella bought in a particular shop, Mary’s House, in Sliema, Malta.

    5. Megrahi was identified by the Maltese shopkeeper as the person who bought the clothes and umbrella.
    Commentary. The most that the Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, would say (either in his evidence in court or at an identification parade before the trial or in a series of nineteen police statements over the years) was that Megrahi “resembled a lot” the purchaser, a phrase which he equally used with reference to Abu Talb, one of those mentioned in the special defence of incrimination lodged on behalf of Megrahi. Gauci had also described his customer to the police as being six feet [183 cms] tall and over fifty years of age. The evidence at the trial established (i) that Megrahi is five feet eight inches [173 cms] tall and (ii) that in late 1988 he was thirty-six years of age. On this material, the judges found in fact that Megrahi was the purchaser.

    6. The purchases were made on 7 December 1988, a date when Megrahi was proved to be on Malta and not on 23 November 1988 when he was not.
    Commentary. By reference to the dates on which international football matches were broadcast on television on Malta, Tony Gauci was able to narrow down the date of purchase of the items in question to either 23 November or 7 December. In an attempt to establish just which, the weather conditions in Sliema on these two days were explored. Gauci’s evidence was that when the purchaser left his shop it was raining to such an extent that his customer thought it advisable to buy an umbrella to protect himself while he went in search of a taxi. The unchallenged meteorological evidence led by the defence established that while it had rained on 23 November at the relevant time, it was unlikely that it had rained at all on 7 December; and if there had been any rain, it would have been at most a few drops, insufficient to wet the ground. On this material, the judges found in fact that the clothes were purchased on 7 December.

    7. The suitcase containing the bomb was sent as unaccompanied baggage from Luqa Airport in Malta, via Frankfurt, on the morning of 21 December 1988 on an Air Malta flight, KM 180.
    Commentary. The trial judges held it proved that the bomb was contained in a piece of unaccompanied baggage which was transported on Air Malta flight KM 180 from Luqa to Frankfurt on 21 December 1988, and was then carried on a feeder flight to Heathrow where Pan Am flight 103 was loaded from empty. The evidence supporting the finding that there was such a piece of unaccompanied baggage was a computer printout which could be interpreted to indicate that a piece of baggage went through the particular luggage coding station at Frankfurt Airport used for baggage from KM 180, and was routed towards the feeder flight to Heathrow, at a time consistent with its having been offloaded from KM 180. Against this, the evidence from Luqa Airport in Malta (whose baggage reconciliation and security systems were proven to be, by international standards, very effective) was to the effect that there was no unaccompanied bag on that flight to Frankfurt. All luggage on that flight was accounted for. The number of bags loaded into the hold matched the number of bags checked in (and subsequently collected) by the passengers on the aircraft. The court nevertheless held it proved that there had been a piece of unaccompanied baggage on flight KM 180.

    8. Megrahi was in Malta on the night of 20/21 December 1988 and left for Tripoli from Luqa Airport on the morning of 21 December.

    9. On this visit Megrahi had been travelling on a passport (in a name other than his own) which was never subsequently used.
    Commentary. Megrahi (inexplicably, in the view of many) was not called by his lawyers to give evidence on his own behalf at the trial; so no explanation of his use of this passport was ever supplied to the court. There is an innocent (ie non-Lockerbie related) explanation (involving his role in seeking to circumvent US trade sanctions against Libya and obtain Boeing aircraft spare parts on behalf of his employers, Libyan Arab Airlines) which could have been provided.

  5. I think we should add the following:

    It is a proven fact that thousands of unaccompanied bags fly the Atlantic each year. For a single bag to be unaccompanied therefore proves nothing.

    To claim that an unaccompanied bag contained the bomb it is necessary to prove that that single unaccompanied bag was at the source of the explosion, and was of the make and type known to have contained the bomb. This has never been proved.

    Note that confusion of baggage was a feature of Pan Am 103. Indeed the two bags of one member of the CIA McKee team never travelled on the flight, being totally missed by luggage handlers. Not of itself important, but it does demonstrate that to focus on a single bag or lack of a bag or suitcase proves nothing in the chaos that was Heathrow in 1988.