Sunday, 17 May 2009

Malta could have done more to reject Lockerbie claims - UN monitor

[This is the headline over an article by Caroline Muscat in today's edition of The Sunday Times, Malta. It reads as follows:]

The man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is not guilty as charged and there is no convincing argument for Malta's involvement in the terrorist act, according to the United Nations' appointed monitor of the trial in the Netherlands.

Hans Koechler, who was handpicked by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to monitor proceedings, told The Sunday Times: "I never really understood why the government of Malta did so little to reject these allegations and to defend the integrity of the country's civil aviation system."

Twenty years after the bombing, the government has gone no further than saying that it is monitoring proceedings of the second appeal. Air Malta did not comment.

Malta was implicated in the terrorist act because the prosecution had argued that Abdel Basset Al-Megrahi and Al-Amin Khalifa Fahima had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport on board the doomed Pan Am flight 103A.

The flight went to London Heathrow and was bound for New York's JFK airport before exploding over Lockerbie in Scotland an hour into the journey on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on board died as well as 11 locals on the ground.

The trial at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands had led the Scottish judges to conclude in 2001 that Mr Al-Megrahi was guilty. He was jailed for life while the other defendant was released.

In his report after the verdict, Dr Koechler had concluded that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. Several years on, he stands by his conclusions: "The court did not come up with any convincing argument that Mr Al-Megrahi is the one who bought the clothes at the shop in Malta and that the 'bomb suitcase' was loaded at Luqa Airport."

Dr Koechler expressed doubt that Mr Al-Megrahi's ongoing appeal, which started on April 28, could be fair and impartial because of the "outright interference of the British government trying to withhold certain sensitive evidence from the defence".

He said political expediency had guided the original verdict, saying it reflected the political considerations related to the foreign policy interests of the involved states at that time.

One of Malta's leading lawyers, who had formed part of the legal team in the defence of the two Libyan suspects, also believes Mr Al-Megrahi is innocent.

Emmanuel Mallia told The Sunday Times: "I personally know the accused and have always firmly believed in his innocence."

Mr Al-Megrahi's appeal was ordered by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission in 2007, after a four-year investigation came to the conclusion that a "miscarriage of justice" may have occurred.

Dr Mallia would not enter into the merits of the case because it is still sub judice. But he said his personal view was that the verdict was flawed.

"Having examined the judgment of the court at Camp Zeist and being aware of the salient evidence produced in the case by the prosecution, I feel that the evidence could never have amounted to guilt of the accusation according to law," Dr Mallia said.

He said the prosecution lacked reliable evidence that could prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt: "Although there were a lot of issues which could give rise to suspicion, anything argued on the basis of suspicion may lead to conjecture but not proof. Even if considering circumstantial evidence, we know that such evidence can mislead and, in order to rely upon it, it has to lead to one direction."

Some argue that at the early investigation stage Malta was perhaps too compliant.

"The government gave access to the Scottish and American investigators to interview people and take any action deemed necessary. Some have argued that things may have been done differently with the Malta police having more direct control of the investigation".

A former Scottish judge regarded as the architect of the Lockerbie trial, Robert Black, also told The Sunday Times last week that there was never any evidence that the bomb left from Malta.

On his blog this week, Prof. Black contested arguments made by the prosecution at the Court of Criminal Appeal in recent days that Mr Al-Megrahi's trip to Malta with a false passport the day the bomb was planted, and his departure the day after, was a link to the commission of the offence.

"As regards the coded - not false - passport, it is of relevance only if the bomb actually started from Malta, which is a finding the defence have strongly challenged in the appeal," Prof. Black said.

The hearing continues despite rumours that the 57-year-old former Libyan intelligence officer may choose to drop his appeal and go home because of a recent prisoner transfer agreement between the UK and Libya.

Mr Al-Megrahi is suffering from prostate cancer and can choose to die at home. But dropping his appeal will leave him a condemned man and mean that Malta will remain implicated in one of the worst terrorist acts in aviation history.

According to Dr Koechler, it is "absolutely essential" that the appeal goes ahead: "The Scottish authorities can reconcile the imperatives of the rule of law and of humanity and grant the appellant compassionate release while the appeal goes on... In a situation where there are serious doubts whether he is guilty as charged, and where the public is confronted with an increasing number of shocking revelations about the mishandling of the case by the judiciary, tampering with evidence, and so on, it is appropriate to make such a step."

Dr Koechler believes the British Parliament should mandate an independent public investigation into the Lockerbie case.

"The international public, including the people of Malta, deserve to know the truth - the full and uncensored truth - about the chain of events that led to the explosion of the American jetliner over Lockerbie."


  1. No bomb-bag from AirMalta KM 180!

    The alleged bombbag (B-8849) came not from Malta but from Berlin with passenger no. 131, W. Wagenführ, as on-line bag from feederflight PA-643, (Prod. 1089, Police Referenz DW 125; PanAm Telex after offbloc PA-643, 11:26 hour in Berlin:
    ZCZC FSA 0207, PTM: PA0643/21> PA103/21--LHRO/0/1 B1).
    This bag (Tray B-8849) although an on-line piece of baggage was wrong coded as inter-line bag on counter V3-206 but not x-rayed, because it was actually an online baggage that had been already X-ray checked in Berlin.

    This on-line bag (B-8849) wrong coded as inter-line bag got the code S0009+Z13:07. This happened at the same time (13:07 hour) when the inter-line baggage from AirMalta, KM-180, (code S0009+Z13:04-13:10) was coded at the same counter V3-206.
    Therefore the wrong acceptance at the court in Kamp van Zeist 2000/2001, that the alleged bombbag (B-8849) was transfered by AirMalta, KM-180 onto PanAm, PA-103/A!!

    Day 38, July 21, 2000, trail Kamp van Zeist:
    Mr. Gunther Kasteleiner was traffic assistant at the baggage handling central station FAG in Frankfurt. As ex witness no. 799 at the trial in Kamp van Zeist, he gave a wrong testimony about the 25 transfer baggages on flight PA-103/A. The question from Q was, how many items inter-line baggage are recorded?--
    Kasteleiner, sworn (original): A- Yes. That's 25 different pieces of inter-line baggages. Q- And were some of those items coded in at hall middle? A Yes.- Q And were others coded in V3?- A Yes.
    Correct is: 13 pieces of inter-line baggages and 12 pieces of on-line baggages (wrong coded as inter-line) via the conveyancing system.
    Important: The bag, Tray B-8849 from Berlin (flight PA-643) was an on-line bag, wrongly coded as inter-line bag.
    Important: for example: A luggage item from air Malta would have been inter-line.
    Through the wrong statement, Gunther Kasteleiner, the court had accepted, the bag came from AirMalta, KM-180!

    Thus witness Gunther Kasteleiner (sworn) traffic assistant FAG, is responsible for this fatal error, inter-line, instead of correctly on-line, solely the bag B-8849 could be assigned to AirMalta flight KM-180 !

    It has been confirmed that the alleged bombbag no. B-8849 which had been coded over the counter V3-206 at 13.07 hour with code S-0009+Z1307, was forwarded on the moving floor (track in the main area HS33+Z1514) and singled out at 15.23 hour (code HS33+Z1514) to F1042/PA-103/A:

    Tray: B 8849 F1042 S0009+Z1307--TO--HS33+Z1517--BO44+Z1523 V3

    There was no inter-line bomb suitcase (B-8849) coming from Air Malta flight KM-180!
    B-8849 was arriving on-line from Berlin /PA-643, W. Wagenführ and was not loaded from Airplane PA-643, direct to Airplane PA-103/A, but via the inter-line counter V3-206.

    Further wrong assumption by the BKA

    Of totally 136 luggage items loaded on flight, PA-103/A, inclusive of 25 pieces: 13 inter-line bag's (X-rayed) and 12 on-line baggage from Berlin (not X-rayed) and wrongly accepted as inter-line baggage were transfered onto shuttles flight PA-103/A, over the baggage conveyance system at airport Frankfurt.

    Important part of the passenger/luggage list, C-140V.
    It shows that according to the passenger/baggage list only 3 passengers with each 3 bags were transported on PA-103/A, but additional 3 unaccompanied and unknown inter-line bags from Lufthansa, flight LH-631, from Kuwait; dubious??

    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.
    > 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 hour, at the transit checking counter in Frankfurt airport, Mr. Walker checked in with his 3 luggage items as tray No. B-7056, B-9531, B-11366;

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

    > 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.
    An expert of the conveyance system in Frankfurt confirmed also MEBO's investigations that 3 pieces of unknown, unaccompanied inter-line baggage with tray numbers B-4809, B-6001, B-7418, had ben loaded at Frankfurt from flight LH-631 (Kuwait) to PanAm 103/A:

    Tray:B 4809 F1042 S0074+Z1444--BP--HS33+Z1514--BO44+Z1521 HM
    Tray:B 6001 F1042 S0074+Z1445--BP--HS33+Z1515--BO44+Z1522 HM
    Tray:B 7418 F1042 S0074+Z1446--BP--HS13+Z1514--BO44+Z1521 HM

    Thus it is absolutely clear that three additional inter-line luggage items (B-4809, B-6001, B-7418 coded over the inter-line counter HM-3) from flight LH-631 arriving from Kuwait and then transfered to flight PA-103/A don't belong to passenger no. 143, T. Walker as the BKA supposed falsely! An irresponsible mistake due to the BKA's sloppy investigations.

    It is not clear up today whether these three mysterious baggage items were loaded in London-Heathrow on the mainflight, PA-103 to NewYork (JFK). Commissioner Hans Jürgen Fuhl (ex 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 (ex Crown Witness 566):
    Other organisations who were investigating the bombing in London Heathrow had taken some of the documentation before the BKA could get its hands on it. Fuhl also testified that PanAm had apparently instructed staff at Heathrow to destroy documentation. (Ref. Doc.1 Chapter 13, page 38)

    RESULT: On the feeder flight PA-103/A from Frankfurt to London-Heathrow not one Samsonite suitcase - the alleged bomb suitcase (B-8849) 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, items B-4809, B-6001, B-7418.

    If the ex Denfence team of Mr. Megrahi, Duff & Taylor, at the trial in Kamp van Zeist and at the first Appeal had clinged to Edwin Bollier' s advice (Bollier's PanAm103 Disertation), the statement that a bomb suit-case with a MST-13 timer from air Malta KM-180 was transferred in Frankfurt on PA-103/A would have been dismissed in favour of Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi' who would be a free man like Mr Fhimah since February 2001 …
    Duff & Taylor weren't ready to share with MEBO $ 200 millions, Libya had offered in 2000 in case Libya's innocence would be confirmed at the trial. For these reasons Duff & Taylor put their attention on the PFLP-GC-story what ended in a total disaster and in a blatant miscarriage of justice.

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd, Switzerlnd

    All MEBO proofs are under copyright protected and belong to Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, Mebo Ltd., 8004, Zurich Switzerland.

  2. MEBO Ltd. wants to bring with a new complaint, 7 Scottish official in the prison, because of proof falsifications in the prison.

    Edwin Bollier, VR, MEBO Ltd, Switzerland

  3. The Malta Sunday Times says "they had placed the bomb on an Air Malta aircraft before it was transferred at Frankfurt airport on board the doomed Pan Am flight 103A."

    An important correction: it was not the Boeing 727 feeder flight PA 103A from Frankfurt that was "doomed". It was the Boeing 747 jumbo jet (PA 103) from Heathrow that crashed at Lockerbie.

  4. MALTA, Document no. 498/b

    Since August 1990, definitely a wrong date was created (7th of December, 1988) in order to accuse deliberately the libyan official Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi as the buyer of the cloths in "Mary's House".

    A further proof from MEBO that the sale of dresses in Anthony Gauci "Mary's House" took undoubtedly place on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988 by a supposedly Libyan buyer:

    Tony Gauci told Bollier on 25.1. 2008 in Malta, that the 2 pieces of pyjamas, label "John Mallia", were the last two pyjamas he had sold to a Libyan in his shop. On the other day, the 24th of November 1988, Gauci by phon ordered at the company "John Mallia" additionally 8 pieces of the same pyjamas. The 8 pyjamas were delivered on the 25th of November 1988 with the calculation/delivery note, dated 25th of November 1988 to Gauci' s Mary' s House at Sliema Malta. Prod. 477-1.

    The day after Wednesday, December 7, December 8, 1988 was an official public holiday (Immaculate Conception Day) and the "John
    Mallia" company was closed.
    But the day after November 23, November 24, 1988 was not an official public holiday, the company "John Mallia" was open.

    Court at Kamp van Zeist, Excerpt:
    MR. CAMPBELL: The next witness is 606, Paul Mallia. THE MACER: Paul Mallia, Your Lordship. WITNESS: PAUL MALLIA, sworn EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. CAMPBELL:

    Q -- Mr. Mallia, what is your full name? A --Paul Mallia.
    Q --And your address? A --It's 4 Marina Court, Sliema Road, Malta.
    Q --What is the name of the company? A --It's John N. Mallia & Son Limited.

    Q --Would you look, please, at Label 445. Do you see that the bag contains a pair of pyjamas? A--These are the pyjamas we used to
    manufacture back in that time. Q--Could we have on the screen, please, Production 181, photograph 134. You see there a photograph of a pair of pyjamas. Can you confirm, first of all, that that's a photograph of the pyjamas that you have physically in front of you? A--Yes, it is.

    Q--Are you familiar with a shop called Mary's House in Tower Road, Sliema? A--Yes. He is one of our clients. Q--Did you supply that shop with goods? A--Yes, we do. Q--Would you look, please, at Production 501. Focus in on the label at the top of the page, please. We see that that label describes what we are about to look at as an invoice.
    If we move on, please, to the next image, image 1. Do we there see a carbon-copy invoice from your records, John N. Mallia & Son Limited? A--Yes. Q--And do we see that it's dated 31st October 1988? A--Yes, that's correct. Q--And it's to Mary's House? A--Yes.
    Q--In Sliema. And do we see that included in the order is a
    quantity of 16 men's pyjamas? A--Yes.

    Q--If you can close that, please, and look now at Production 500. Do we see that this label tells us that this, too, is a receipt. And if -- an invoice, I'm sorry. And if we move to image 1, we again see
    that this is a carbon copy invoice from your records.
    Is this one dated the 25th of November 1988? **
    A--Yes, that's correct. Q--And again, is it to Mary's House in
    Sliema? A--Yes.
    Q--And in this case the item -- the items in it is a quantity of eight men's pyjamas? A--Yes.

    ** (MEBO: This order made by Gauci on 24th of November 1988, by telephone the. The supply was the other day, 25th of November)

    Excerpt: described by Gauci.

    Question: Q--And if we can have
    Production 4771, do we see that that's a similar invoice to your shop from John Mallia dated 25th November 1988 for eight pairs of pyjamas?
    Answer: A--Yes. I used to buy stock, and when it finished, I used to buy -- I used to phone often. It's an item that is quite sold in winter.


    Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi was not in Malta on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988, thus Mr. Megrahi is definetely not the buyer of the dresses !

    More news on:

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO LTD, Switzerland

  5. For more details on Air Malta like Information, history, baggage details, check in, destinations, fleets, images and more visit "". This URL may be useful.