Friday, 2 October 2009

More Megrahi materials released

A second batch of materials has been released on Abdelbaset Megrahi’s website. These take the form of Grounds of Appeal numbers 3.1 to 3.3 (which would have been argued at the second stage of the – now abandoned – appeal that had been due to start on 2 November 2009) along with two expert reports and the US Department of Justice publication Eyewitness Evidence: A Guide for Law Enforcement.

These materials relate principally to the evidence emanating from Malta.

1. The credibility and reliability of the evidence of “identification” of Megrahi by Maltese shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, is challenged by reference to (a) new evidence about the circumstances in which Gauci’s various “resemblance” statements came to be made, including improper conduct by investigators; (b) failure by the Crown to disclose to the defence statements by Gauci that undermined or contradicted his “identification”; (c) failure to disclose to the defence the existence of, and a police statement by, a witness who may have been present when the purchase of the clothes in Gauci’s shop took place; (d) the expectation of money from US official sources on the part of Tony Gauci and his brother, Paul, and its subsequent payment to them; (e) evidence from two leading psychologists and experts on facial recognition of the unreliability of Gauci’s “identification” of Megrahi.

2. The Lockerbie court’s acceptance of 7 December 1988 as the date of purchase of the clothes and other items in Tony Gauci’s shop is challenged. Even on the material before the court at Zeist, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission had concluded that it was strongly arguable that no reasonable court could have reached the conclusion that this was the date. The materials released today disclose the existence of new evidence that confirms that the date of purchase was not 7 December 1988 (and hence that the purchaser was not Abdelbaset Megrahi).

The importance of this is, of course, that if the court at Zeist had not decided that Mr Megrahi was the purchaser of the clothes in Malta, they would not in law have been entitled to convict him.

A further matter expected to be adverted to in today’s materials, but which does not seem to be, is the SCCRC ground of referral based on documents in respect of which the UK Foreign Secretary has claimed public interest immunity and to which Mr Megrahi’s legal team still have not had access. Had the appeal continued, Megrahi’s lawyers would have argued that, without the information on which the SCCRC had referred the case back to the appeal court, he could not exercise his right of appeal and would accordingly have been denied fairness, contrary to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[A report on this newly released material can be read on the Sky News website. A report on the heraldscotland website, which contains comments by Megrahi himself, can be read here, that on The Guardian website here and that on The Times website here.]


  1. Perhaps there is something I am missing about the situation on public interest immunity.

    Would it not have been possible for there to be a hearing before the main appeal began, resolving the issue of whether non-disclosure of secret documents made it untenable for the Crown to continue to maintain the conviction?

    If it was possible, who decided that the appeal should begin without it, and that previous hearings should take place over an extended period without this fundamental issue being sorted out first?

    If not, is that not a problem in existing legislation and/or procedure which could waste judicial resources as well as delaying or denying justice to appellants and victims?

    only computer translation "Babylon" german/english:

    Most overtaxed defense material for Mr. Megrahi's second Appeal was over taken from the lost first Appeal 2001, and is a insufficient achievement ...

    For the strange dresses sale at 7 Dezember 1988 in Malta by Shopkeeper Gauci, over 300 fall flat sides defense text material was written but the importest determining evidence was not in focus, that the dresses sale was taken place on 23 November 1988, free of doubts, not at the 7 Dezember 1988!

    Only our MEBO proofs, with 1 side text brings the fundamental proof, that the dresses sale had taken place on 23 November 1988, free of doubts! Thus is Mr. Megrahi out from the dirty "play". Mr. Megrahi was verifiable not on this date in Malta!

    Document no. 498

    Tony Gauci told Bollier on 25.01.2008 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.

    continuation down >>>

  3. continuation document no. 498

    Court at Kamp van Zeist, Excerpt:
    MR. CAMPBELL: The next witness is 606, Paul Mallia.
    THE MACER: Paul Mallia, Your Lordship.
    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).

    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.
    more information on our website: htt://

    by Edwin an Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  4. A very interesting question, Matt Berkley, indeed! At least one could have expected Mr. Megrahi´s legal team to press ahead to solve that question.
    But as it turns out no side, neither the Scottish nor the British nor the American nor the Libyan government were interested in this second appeal.

  5. Yes, it's obvious the UK gave something to the Libyan government in return for Megrahi dropping his appeal. This wouldn't have been business because business benfits both parties.

  6. If 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...

    by Edwin Bollier

  7. Ebol, you condemn the Libyan Government for making an oil deal with Britain at the price of killing the appeal. But we don`t know what the background to the dropping of the appeal was.Why do you assume that the Libyan Government was involved?

  8. Attn Grendal >

    Behind the surprising release of the innocent Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, did not stand an "Oil Deal" nor a Prisoner Transfer Agreement" with Libya, but the FEAR of Scotland's and Great Britain's, before the result and open secrets of the current Appeals (miscarriage of justice) and the following damages compensation from Libya up to 40 billion US$!

    by Edwib Bollier, MEBO Ltd.

  9. Not sure I fully understand your reply, Ebol.But surely now Libya and Mr al Megraghi have an option to reinstate the appeal.If the Scots in some way duped them into dropping the appeal as a condition of release,then Libya is in a strong position now.Why don`t they either renege on the deal or re instate the appeal.I can`t help thinking that for some reason Libya is as happy as Scotland,the UK and the USA that the appeal will not be heard.I just can`t work out why.Can anyone help me here?

  10. "... that Libya is as happy as Scotland,the UK and the USA that the appeal will not be heard."

    Business agreements. This is about money. In that context Lockerbie is simply one card in a game. The card could be unpleasant for UK/US, so it has been considered, deals have been made, hands shaken, and the matter has been closed.
    Expecting anything else would be grossly underestimating the players. They are anything else than careless. IMHO.