Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic who have been outraged at the release of the mass-murdering “Lockerbie bomber” should take time to read the many hundreds of pages of evidence and argument in the case, expected to be released by his lawyers over the next few weeks.
Even the most vociferous critic might be left in some doubt about the conviction of Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, freed from a Scottish jail to die with his family in Libya, and suspect that the Libyan was the victim of the most dreadful miscarriage of justice.
The fact that the wrong man was in the dock was evident to those few independent observers who sat through the entire travesty of a trial in the Netherlands nearly 10 years ago. One of those was Dr Hans Koechler, appointed by the United Nations, who concluded: "There is not one single piece of material evidence linking [Megrahi] to the crime… the guilty verdict appears to be arbitrary, even irrational.”
Flawed and glaringly contradictory evidence
Koechler’s report was a damning indictment of the three Scottish trial judges who sat without a jury. The bulk of their judgment pointed to a not proven verdict – and then they convicted Megrahi anyway.
As Eye readers will know, there were alterations to crucial forensic exhibits supposedly linking Libya and Megrahi to the bomb, for which police and scientists could give no proper explanation; there was a succession of flawed and glaringly contradictory evidence from key witnesses, at least two of whom were paid by the CIA; there was evidence of the striking similarity to the modus operandi of a Syrian-backed Palestinian terrorist cell, operating out of Frankfurt, caught with devices equipped to bring down planes – one of which was missing. And then, of course, there was the crucial “identification” of Megrahi by Tony Gauci, the Maltese shopkeeper who sold the clothes identified as being packed in the suitcase with the bomb. In all his statements and evidence, Gauci only ever says that Megrahi bore a “resemblance” to the man who purchased the clothes – never that he was the man.
The judges performed a number of extraordinary leaps of logic to overcome these and all the other problems with the prosecution case, and it was evident to Dr Koechler even then that “foreign governments and secret governmental agencies”, directly or indirectly, influenced the trial.
[The above are the first two sections of Private Eye's most recent article on Lockerbie. The remaining two sections are also worth reading.]
Allow me to draw your attention to my latest posts under the headline "The Scotsman legal debate ..." from 21 September 2009. There I deal with an essential piece of evidence - the radio circuit board fragment.
ReplyDeleteClear and concise article.
ReplyDeleteIt says:
"The forthcoming release of the papers by Tony Kelly, Megrahi’s Glasgow-based solicitor, should prove that the Libyan was not responsible for the atrocity in the skies over Lockerbie. "
I have missed this, unless this material is what we know from www.megrahimystory.net
Anyone knows?
Adam, have a link?
ReplyDeleteMISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteThe dropping of the successful promising "Lockerbie appeal is invalid and must be set back to the status from 19/20 August, 2009!
Professor Dr. Hans Koechler, UN Observer during "Lockerbie trial" held in Kamp van Zeist points out a servere error, which was not happening for the first time:
According to Scottish law, it is NOT necessary that a convicted shall withdrawal his demand for reappeal in order to profit from a so called "compassionate release". Such withdrawal would have been necessary only, if Mr Bdelbaset Al Megrahi would have been returned to his home country on the basis of the agreement between Libya and Great Britain referring to the mutual transfer of prisoners.
It lacks of any reason, that Mr Megrahi has abandoned his right, that the reappeal-procedure shall continue also in the case of his sudden death. It is well possible, that Mr Megrahi was not informed/consulted correctly during his stay in prison. There is a vital danger, that this fatal error will deeply influence the jurisdiction in the case in question.
Professor Dr Koechler explained to me personaly, that it is a generaly accepted principle of right, that such decision is only valid, wehn this desicion has been made in full liberty. Professor Koechler has furthermore immediately after the desicion of withdrawal was made public asked, that all circumstances, which have lead to this desicion must be 100% cleared-including the role, which was "played" by his (Megrahi's) defense-team!
MEBO states the following: The publication of Mr Megrahi's appeal-documents on his internet-webpage for the sake of clearing his name is a clear indice, that the "dropping" of his appeal was NOT based on his free will:
Why so? / Possible answers
1. Mr Megrahi was not protected to absolutely avoid a legally wrong decision by the present lawyer Tony Kelly;
2. Mr Megrahi was possibly set under drugs which resulted in the fact, that his medical ability was out of control;
3. Mr Megrahi was intentionable wrongfully informed about his legal possibilities;
4. Mr Megrahi was blackmailed by facts, which have nothing to do with the PanAm 103 attack and were clearly aimed do drop the appeal;
5. It would have been the clear duty of the Lord Advocates at the appeal court in Edinburgh, to learn Mr Megrahi, that a dropping of the appeal-issue would not influence the 'compassionate release'! >>>
>>>
ReplyDeleteIn a TV interview with Al Jazeera, Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi has denied any deal was done to secure the release of the only man, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, convicted of the Lockerbie bombing and this problem ended.
He said also: "It is not possible anymore to talk about clearing Libya or not Mr. Megrahi was the only person who had the right to appeal to the European Court, but as I said because of his illness and release it seems that there is no need for an appeal".
In a other interview: With regard to Lockerbie case, Leader Gaddafi said that Libya has not accepted culpability, and only took responsibility for the actions of its citizens. "We never acknowledged any guilt ... and Libya was never indicted in any court as responsible!"
MEBO states that the Leader of Libya Mr Gaddafi was intentionable wrong informed by his Scottish solicitors!
Firstly, Mr Megrahi would not have been forced in this moment in time to apply the European Court, since the dropping of his appeal, and if this would be the fact, the High Court in Edinburgh would fully remain in duty.
Mr Abdelbaset Al Megrahi personaly, his family, the Libyan People, the families of the victims of PA 103 and any person and/or organization, who suffered either morally or financially, like MEBO, from this tragedy are definitely asking for a true, rightful and final decision of the second appeal on the High Court in Edinburgh!
We ask Mr Al Megrahi to use his good and guaranteed right withdraw the wrongful dropping of his appeal, stating a declaration dated from 19/20 August, 2009 which should be formulated and substantiated by his Libyan lawer and then immediadely submitted to the Scottish Justiciary in Edinburgh!
In order to restaurate the prestige and the honour of Libya and the whole Libyan People we again ask the respective unknown government (possible Switzerland or Germany) which has delivered to the United Kingdom, on September 13, 1996, a document under 'National Security' (PII), please give to Justice Secretary MacAskill the granted permission for opening PII for public interests...
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteIf Megrahi not make use of its right and will take back the dropping of his appeal -- the internationally media and the victim families of PA-103 will say-- the Megrahi's transfair was definitive dependent from a BP oil deal between UK and Libya...
Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
I read the remaining two sections at Tescos. I don't agree they were worth reading and I didn't think they were worth buying Private Eye for.
ReplyDeleteThe title "Other Names in the Frame-up" seemed promising but it was just a rehash of the usual guff much of which featured in the poorer parts of Ms Peirce's article.
Apparently Megrahi didn't do it but another gang of Arab terrorists did. No official collusion then?
Some of the "evidence" was painfully thin. It escapes me how someone who (rightly) argues that the evidence against Megrahi was weak and refers to the recently published documents repeating the point that Mr Gauci claimed the purcahser was over 50 and that Gauci only said he "resembled" the purcahser can argue that Gauci really identified Abu Talb.
Talb circled the date 21/12/88 on his calender (or somebody did for him!)- well I'm convinced! Talb had been to Malta and bought some clothing there - so what? As noted in the article Abu Talb appeared as a witness at Camp Zeist and the defence hardly laid a glove on him.
Abu Talb is a person of interest linked to the "Autumn Leaves" affair but his connection (if any) to Lockerbie is quite unproven.
Well, somehow, in a very screwed form, Mr. Talb IS connected to Lockerbie. He was the one who let the FBI and Scottish police put together the first theory that the bomb could have started from Malta. Afterwards, when Syria became ally in the war and Mr. Giaka squealed his collegues it was easy to insert Mr. Megrahis name into that theory.
ReplyDeletebaz wrote:
ReplyDelete"As noted in the article Abu Talb appeared as a witness at Camp Zeist and the defence hardly laid a glove on him."
I have often thought, when speaking about Megrahi's defense, that of course numerous mistakes, oversights and omissions are just bound to be made. A trial is very much a real-time, one-shot affair - compared to later scrutiny it will never stand up as sufficient, compared to what should have been said and done.
Prosecution does not have quite the same problem - it has ample time to prepare evidence, as well as the indictment, which it may change if needed.
Where endless public resources for the prosecution are involved, the trial may be skewed from the start. The pressure of political necessity does not help.
Another example is the case against Milosevic - this page predicted his death before the end of the trial, claiming that 200 mio Euros were spend on producing 500,000 pages of evidence. How is anyone to defend himself against that?
http://www.carniola.org/2004/02/the-case-against-milosevic.htm
Death also played its role in the incomplete legal proceedings in the Lockerbie case.
To sfm: You asked for a link. To what to where?
ReplyDeleteTo your "latest posts under the headline 'The Scotsman legal debate ...' from 21 September 2009.".
ReplyDeleteThen I realized it on this blog, and found it. Good discussion.
Circuit boards are designed within the factory and carries all kinds of small notes and instructions. Some part of the board usually have a big identifier of some kind.
It is correct that "L" usually means "coil", but designers can write what they want. There are nothing in the numbers that says "Toshiba" or "Radio Recorder" or something.
Only a person who'd have seen and remembered fine detail of a circuit board could recognize such a fragment, i.e. the designer or the assembler.
Of course a comparison with an original board can determine if the fragment could be from that board. It should be noted that parts of circuit boards are often repeated on other boards (even in other productions by other brands), and many circuit boards are often modules used in many different contexts.
If somebody claim to be able to tell where such a fragment came from he'd usually have to explain how.
Unless he meant he simply had a gut feeling that this would be a exploded recorder, because he had seen this methods elsewhere.
Putting any piece of evidence on your finger is highly unprofessional, BTW. If Thurman had managed DNA-evidence we'd not have had the ability to exonerate wrongly convicts because of the better methods available today.
Adam - Giaka started squealing his colleagues two years before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
ReplyDeleteDid Abu Talb give the FBI and the Scottish Police the idea the bomb was introduced at Malta or like Hansel and Gretel were they following a trail carefully laid?
I think it relevant that prior to going to Malta Abu Talb tried to fly to Tripoli but was thrown of the plane at Rome. If "Autmn Leaves" had not been foiled in the days before the 1992 Presidential Election would an investigation reveal one of the plotters/bombers had begun his journey from Libya?
I do not think it a coincidence Abu Talb left Malta on the day of the "Autumn Leaves" arrests. I personally suspect the bomb that destroyed PA103 was brought to England on the Gothenburg Ferry but cannot prove this.
My point is this - if Megrahi was framed could the evidence have been improvised after the invasion of Kuwait or must it have been planned prior to the bombing (but after the "Vincennes Incident")
I concede a lot of it could have been and Malta chosen because a man associated with MEBO happened to visit Malta the day before the bombing.
But the "Malta clothing"? If a real person walked into St Mary's House Boutique and actually purchased several of the items later recovered from Tundergarth (whether or not these items, the suitcase and the IED had actually been on PA103) then that incident must have been related to a plan to bomb an aircraft and lay a trail to Malta. As Gauci's description of the purchaser didn't match Megrahi I suspect there really was a purchaser (never identified.)
Are the bombing and the alleged framing of Megrahi seperate issues or intimately related? Did the "intelligence services" frame Megrahi as politically expedient solution to an insoluble crime (also solving the seperate problem of "Libya") or if he was framed does not imply collusion in the bombing itself?
Dear Baz: Sorry,that I have not answered/commented your very relevant questions. I hope we can come back to it when the revealed documents issue is over.
ReplyDeletelook at www.hotmail.com
ReplyDeleteaccount champcompconsultant
password roya123
scan of cards from intelligence agencies, emails for Victims groups and from the Libyans.
I was trraded away Twice.. Aug 31, 2000 when they made a deal that there would be no defence witness if the main witness was trashed...
then May 2001 when Bush made a deal wit the Libyans to get on the UN security council for Human Rights
THE WHYS
[pan Am used to be called Pan Iran, The US and right wing Jewish groups were trying to install the Shahs son.. My father-in-law was involved.. The Shahs family was the largest shareholder in Pan Am
Bollier, who made the timer for the bombs, wife was Iranian , accoridng to the Libyans
The Libyans want the sanctions off and we told that if they embarassed the US or UK, that would never happen.. so they negotiated on everything..
BP, Shell, Exxon and Total are now in Libya as they were in Iran
They are put the sticks to me and I expect worse
Barry Lanza
00 44 1786 831 554
wife is Hessaby, well know in Iran and my mother-in-laws family were Pakravans... SAVAK