It was on 14 November 1991 that the prosecution authorities in Scotland (the Lord Advocate, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC) and the United States (acting US Attorney General, William Barr) simultaneously announced that they had brought criminal charges -- principally murder and conspiracy to murder -- arising out of the destruction of Pan Am 103 against two Libyan nationals, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi and Lamin Fhimah, who were alleged to be members, and to have been acting throughout as agents, of the Libyan intelligence service.
According to the Scottish and American prosecutors, what had happened was this. The two Libyans had manufactured, or caused to be manufactured, a bomb using a Toshiba cassette recorder, Semtex explosive and a digital electric timer (supplied and manufactured by a Swiss company based in Zurich, MeBo AG, the principals of which were Erwin Meister and Edwin Bollier). The device had been placed in a brown Samsonite suitcase in Malta, along with items of clothing purchased for the purpose from a particular shop (Mary's House) in Sliema owned by the Gauci family. Using stolen Air Malta luggage tags, the Libyans (one of whom -- Fhimah -- had occupied the post of station manager for Libyan Arab Airlines in Malta) introduced the suitcase at Luqa Airport into the interline baggage system as unaccompanied luggage on Air Malta Flight KM 180 from Malta to Frankfurt, with directions for its onward transmission (first) on to a feeder flight (PA 103A) to Heathrow and (second) on to Pan Am flight 103 from Heathrow to J F Kennedy Airport in New York.
[From a forthcoming book on the Lockerbie case.]
[From a forthcoming book on the Lockerbie case.]
ReplyDeleteI see no sub-attribution of the content, so... looking forward much to the book, prof. Black. Finally they opposition will have some leverage against you. Ohhh, he's just been planning a book all along... ;)
The fundamental question I pose about the Lockerbie saga is this:-
ReplyDeleteWas the primary objective of the Indictment to bring the two accused to trial or to impose UN sanctions on Libya?
The primary objective? That was certainly to impose UN sanctions. Even Mr. Marquise tells us in his interesting book that the CIA did not believe that the indictment would hold water in a trial.
ReplyDeleteCaustic Logic:
ReplyDeleteNo one has to go far... Here is how Prof. Black describes his entry into the Lockerbie case:
My personal involvement in the aftermath of the destruction of Pan Am 103 began in early 1993. I was approached by representatives of a group of British businessmen whose desire to participate in major engineering works in Libya was being impeded by the UN sanctions...
[Source: http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/04/lockerbie-mystery-will-remain.html]
I think that is clear enough, even though it uses the vague term "approached" by British businessmen instead of "hired" or "contracted." Whatever the case may be, I don't recall reading about any other motivation for Prof. Black. In other words, it can be argued that the Lockerbie process was devised in the interest of British business from beginning to end. As a Libyan, I am of course not at all insensitive to the subtle tribalistic undertones of involving a mediator from the "tribe" of Lockerbie. Crafty, those British businessmen!
In the succeeding paragraphs of the above cited interview, Prof. Black goes on to volunteer a testimony on the Libyan government's surprise and embarrassment over the decision of the defense lawyers against turning over the accused. The obvious implication is that there is actually something called "government" in the usual authoritative sense of the word, not in the sense of window dressing, and that in the Libyan totalitarian dictatorship, those who wield absolute authority also stand at arms length from the decisions of two security officers in the biggest international case in Libyan history! I used to wonder why so many hungry Western journalists are, according to their "journalistic testimonies," more interested in how many silk pajamas Gaddafi owns than how many powers he wields without official accountability. I don't do that any more because I understand the mechanics of supply and demand. I just wish Western journalists would get some lessons from Western businessmen.
When Prof. Black is done with his book, I suggest he submit it to Mr. Saadi Gaddafi's movie production firm, free of charge, as a form of atonement for providing assurance to the Libyan dictatorship to enter into - what he now calls - a miscarriage of justice. Of course doing business with Gaddafi's son could not be misconstrued as cutting deals with the Libyan "government" because neither Gaddafi nor his son holds office in the Libyan government.
Here is a longer quote than the one Suliman has chosen to post:
ReplyDelete'I first became involved in the Lockerbie affair in January 1993. I was approached by representatives of a group of British businessmen whose desire to participate in major engineering works in Libya was being impeded by the UN sanctions. They had approached the then Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (the head of the Scottish Bar) and asked him if any of its members might be willing to provide advice to them -- on an unpaid basis! -- on Scottish criminal law and procedure in their attempts to unblock the logjam. The Dean of Faculty, Alan Johnston QC (later Court of Session judge Lord Johnston), recommended me. The businessmen asked if I would be prepared to provide independent advice to the government of Libya -- again on an unpaid basis -- on matters of Scottish criminal law, procedure and evidence with a view (it was hoped) to persuading them that their two citizens would obtain a fair trial if they were to surrender themselves to the Scottish authorities. There was, of course, never the slightest chance that surrender for trial in the United States could be contemplated by the Libyans, amongst other reasons because of the existence there of the death penalty for murder.'
It can be found here:
http://lockerbiecase.blogspot.com/2009/10/al-megrahi-defence-knew-bomb-fragment.html
Obviously a young frustrated man. If you are helped by shooting in all directions, it is just ok.
ReplyDeletePtofessor Black "young and frustrated"?
ReplyDeleteHe he! Mr. Suliman, of course!
ReplyDeleteThank you, "Mr. Adam," for the compliment, and as the saying goes, you're as young as you feel. The rest of your comment shows me that your lack of a coherent argument has once again caused you to resort to clairvoyance, just as you did before (See here and here.)
ReplyDelete----------
I see very little additional information in the data that Prof. Black chose to add. I don't want to bicker about all the different forms of benefiting from an affair that may not strictly qualify as "payment" but I will emphasize that the data: (1) say nothing to clarify Prof. Black's motives or interests going in, charity included, (2) change nothing about whose interests were being explicitly represented and served from the beginning to the end of the cooked-up affair, namely crafty British businessmen, and (3) the data show nothing standing in the way of my suggested proper tribal resolution, which is for a Lockerbie tribe member and a Gaddafi to embark on a joint venture, one donating the script and the other producing and selling the movie. And if it helps to keep the Yankees out, make the movie in Bollywood.
I found Suliman's insight, particularly that of the 17th November 2009 (above) of great interest. While the indictment named Mr Fhimah and Mr Megrahi it was of course the Libyan regime in the dock.
ReplyDeleteI was indeed surprised and disturbed to learn that Professor Black became involved through giving free advice to businessmen inconvenienced by UN sanctions in oder to remove a "logjam".
I remain of the view that the verdict at Casmp Zeist was coloured by the determination of the Judiciary that this experiment should never be repeated.