Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, rejecting claims that his government had decided not to investigate Lockerbie prime witness Tony Gauci due to pressure from the US.
[From the Quotes of the week column in today's edition of the Maltese newspaper The Sunday Times.]
I wonder under what legal construction it would be possible to 'investigate' Tony Gauci?!
ReplyDeleteTo my knowledge he is suspected of nothing criminal (in Malta). So who should investigate? Is there some apparatus in place, like a "hearing"?
What is there to investigate? OK, it would be interesting if a letter to a friend existed, saying "I have decided to incriminate Megrahi to score the 2M USD", but who'd expect to find such matters?
Guaci is not the one to blame anyway. We may suspect him of knowingly bending the truth, yes, but he might also have been in some kind of little bit exactly halfway good faith at the time of trial, as pointed out by the psychologist referred to elsewhere on this blog.
The culprits are those who paid him money, those who did not reveal all facts about his earlier statements and those who, even on the basis given at the time, still interpreted his testimony as having weight in the evaluation of the question of Megrahi's guilt.
According to sfm's criteria, the culprits include:
ReplyDelete* DCI Bell
* Procurator Fiscal Brisbane
* DI Dalgleish
* DSIO Gilchrist
* ACC Graham
* ACC Grech
* SIO DCS Henderson
* FBI Agent Knisley
* SIO DCS McCulloch
* Inspector Scicluna (Malta)
These names are all recorded at paragraph 3.1.7(d) of Abdelbaset Megrahi's second appeal evidence as having discussed 'Financial Interest and Reward Monies' for the Gauci brothers (see http://www.megrahimystory.net/ 5 pp60 - 231 Grounds of Appeal).
How can they be brought to justice?
To Sfm: I suppose that a Maltese parliamentarian committee assigned to investigate the role of Malta in the Lockerbie case would have the right to call any Maltese citizen.
ReplyDeleteWhat confueses me: What is the "it" in "it is totally untrue"?
1. That the government has DECIDED?
2. That the government has decided NOT to investigate?
3. That - decision or not - there was PRESSURE from the US?
attn. Patrick Haseldine:
ReplyDeleteInteresting the name "Gilchrist", seems to be in the context an integrated component.
by Edwin Bollier. MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteWhich police officer from UK or Scotland was before in Malta in this case and why?
A covered visit was in July 1989, before the visit of officer Henry Woods Bell on the 1st of September 1989 by Scottish or UK investigators in Malta.
Both visits were not authorized by international legal assistance and were therefore illegal. It was also not fair opposite to other investigation teams, from the FBI or the BKA Germany for example. Also if they have been approved later by Maltese Deputy Prime Minister Mr. de Marco...
by Edwin und Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd.,Switzerland
The whole "mystery shopper" story is helluva weird, but I can't realistically see how it could be false.
ReplyDeleteIf you were scratching around for clothes to fill up a suitcase containing a radio-cassette bomb, what would you do? I can think of a few sensible suggestions.
- raid a few skips or landfill dumps
- visit one or more charity shops selling second-hand clothes, picking a busy time when occasional volunteer staff are likely to be on duty, and pay cash
- go to a large branch of a big department store in a big anonymous city, and pay cash
A seriously non-sensible suggestion is to go to a small family-owned business in a tourist resort out of season, at a quiet time when you are the only customer, and are being served by the owner (or the owner's son) himself.
And yet that is apparently what the bombers did. Weird.
(As an aside, given that this must have been a conspiracy involving a good number of people, the other thing you don't do is have the same person buy the clothes and introduce the suitcase onto the plane - especially if the two events are taking place within three miles of each other. Indeed, you don't arrange it so that these events take place within three miles of each other. And yet that is what we are supposed to believe Megrahi did!)
Even so, it still seems quite strange that Gauci remembered the purchase quite so clearly as much as ten months later, so much so that he appeared to be able to give a list of the items bought, and the cost.
I can't quite see how any of this could actually have been fabricated, and Gauci isn't exactly the type of person one can imagine being suborned and coached to tell an entirely false story.
It just feels wrong.
Dear Rolfe,
ReplyDeletethat is what we all are battling with: The official evidence does not make any sense. According to the indictment – and the verdict – Mr. Megrahi broke all the basic principles for the work of any intelligence agent on any mission. He did everything wrong and walked like an elephant through the scenery. If one believes in the indictment one has to admit that Mr. Megrahi did all he could to be traced and detected.
In the perspective of Lockerbie the coded passport detail fx is/would be extremely amateurish. And it is then topped by the fact that Mr. Megrahi brought his coded passport with him when he went to Camp Zeist - in order to prove his innocence. The only reasonable conclusion must be that the coded passport had nothing to de with Lockerbie.
One reason for going to the small shop could be that there might be cameras (in '88?) in a shopping mall, and for sure more witnesses?!
ReplyDelete- - -
But there are so many unbelievable blunders.
Packing clothes with traceable labels?
Above all, setting the timer to a time where a plane in ever-delayed Christmas traffic could still be on the ground? How much IQ does it take to set the timer to 2-3 hours before the plane lands? Air India 182, 23 June 1985, was 1 hour and 40 minutes delayed. Unfortunately the timer was set to the latter part of the flight, how brilliant.
- - -
As a frame-up it could have been done in any number of ways. I agree that none of them are more plausible than the likelihood of above blunders actually happening.
And if it was a frame-up it could surely have been done smarter. But if we don't acquit the suspect on basis on "nobody would be that stupid", we can also not drop the idea of a frame-up based on the same argument.
Rolfe:"...Even so, it still seems quite strange that Gauci remembered the purchase quite so clearly as much as ten months later, so much so that he appeared to be able to give a list of the items bought, and the cost."
ReplyDeleteThe story that the Crown tried to make us believe at Camp Zeit was that on the last day of August 1989the British police investigators came to Malta to look for the origin of the found clothes. The same day they went to the Maltese authorities to accredit themselves. The next day in the morning they went to the textile factory where they were shown inventory and selling lists. From there they immediately went to Mr. Gaucis shop where Mr. Gauci could tell them about the purchaser of the clothes.
That is extreme efficiency, isn´t it?
Does anybody believe that?
The only place where - as far as I am aware of - this could take place is in the TV soap "CSI New York".
In normal police work you have to go through all shops who cooperated with the manufactor. You have to look after export lines and so on. And then, only then, you can conclude anything.
It be that the textile manufactorers and Mr. Gauci were prepared by others ahead of the official visit.
For that it needed only one thing: the evidence so far about clothing residues (faked or not) and some time to persuade the involved that it would be to their advantage to tell the brave Scottish policemen what those needed to know.
I would not even insinuate that those shadow persons had any political aim to follow. They simply were driven by the public/governmental expectations to show a progress in the investigations.
I should maybe have written: ... what they "needed" to know... (quotation marks!)
ReplyDeleteI think there can be no doubt that the story about the August/September-89-Visit in Malta that was told by the Crown was not true. The only question can be how far they went in their faking.
In "The Revelations of Vincent Cannistraro" in my article The Bombing of UTA 772 at http://e-zeecon.blogspot.com is Cannistraro's claim to Leppard that the clothing was purchased by a junior Libyan official who was assisting two other Libyan agents.
ReplyDeleteThis official was identified by comparing photos of Libyan agents with an identikit provided by Gauci who signed an affidavit in November 1990. Unfortunately I cannot find a record of any statement made by Gauci between September 1990 and February 1991!
However the two Libyan officials arrested in Senegal, allegedly in possession of MST-13 timers were dropped as prime suspects at the purchaser of the clothing became the prime suspect. (Indeed one gave evidence at Camp Zeist!) Perhaps Megrahi's visit to Malta wasn't part of a plan but a fortuitous opportunity!