Wednesday 11 November 2009

Lockerbie: Human rights lawyer states Megrahi was framed

[This is the headline over an article on the World Socialist Web Site. It consists largely of a summary of Gareth Peirce's recent contribution in the London Review of Books. The following are excerpts from the new article.]

Leading British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce has stated that, in her opinion Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the only man ... convicted of the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, was framed.

Peirce has a long track record of defending those caught in the British legal system’s most notorious miscarriages of justice. Her clients have included the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and Judith Ward, all of whom were Irish people accused and wrongly convicted of IRA bomb attacks in the 1970s. More recently Peirce has taken up a number of high profile cases of individuals accused in the so-called “war on terror”, including the Tipton Three and Moazam Begg, held illegally by the US government in Guantánamo Bay. She has represented the family of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent man shot dead by British police in Stockwell underground station in 2005.

Writing in the September edition of the London Review of Books, Peirce, of the law firm headed by Benedict Birnberg, summarises some of the most concerning, and well known, aspects of the entire Lockerbie disaster in which 270 people died, and the subsequent investigation. (...)

Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi and his co-accused, Llamen Khalifa Fhimah, were handed over by the Libyan government in 1999. The trial opened at a converted US airbase in the Netherlands in 2000. The indictment against Megrahi read that an MST 13 bomb timer was made in Switzerland, by MEBO AG, and sold exclusively to Libya.

Identification of the timer rested on the efforts of Thomas Hayes and Alan Feraday of the Royal Armament and Development Establishment (RARDE), along with Thomas Thurman of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

In 1997, following an investigation by the US inspector general, Michael Bromwich, Thurman was barred from being called as an expert witness. Bromwich described Thurman as “circumventing procedures and protocols, testifying to areas of expertise that he had no qualifications in...therefore fabricating evidence”.

Thomas Hayes claimed that on May 12, 1989, he found a fragment of circuit board in the collar of a shirt later traced to a Maltese shop. The fragment itself had been found in January 1989 by British police investigating the crash site.

Peirce states, “Even if one knew nothing of the devastating findings of the public inquiry in the early 1990s into the false science that convicted the Maguire Seven or of the succession of thunderous judgments in the Court of Appeal in case after case in which RARDE scientists had provided the basis for wrongful convictions, Hayes’s key evidence in this case on the key fragment should be viewed as disgraceful”.

“Hayes”, Peirce continues, “played his part in the most notorious [miscarriage case] of all, endorsing the finding of an explosive trace that was never there, and speculating that a piece of chalk mentioned to the police by Vincent Maguire, aged 16, and a candle by Patrick Maguire, aged 13, ‘fitted the description better’ of a stick of gelignite wrapped in white paper”.

Hayes’s information regarding this crucial piece of Lockerbie evidence was also flawed. Despite having carefully documented every other piece of evidence he found, Hayes had made no drawing of this particular item and had not assigned it a reference number on discovery. He had not carried out a test for explosives. Hayes said he had “no idea” when the pagination of his notes recording findings had been altered to include an additional page, and it was an “unfathomable mystery” as to why the alterations should have occurred. (...)

She describes the verdict delivered in 2001 by three experienced judges, upheld later by five appeal court judges as “profoundly shocking”, and makes the following devastating assessment:

“Al-Megrahi’s trial constituted a unique legal construct, engineered to achieve a political rapprochement, but its content was so manipulated that in reality there was only ever an illusion of a trial”.

Peirce concludes that there is “pressing need to investigate in details how it has come about that there has been a form of death in this case—the death of justice—and who should be found responsible”.

Subsequent to Peirce’s comments, more revelations have emerged about the crucial piece of MST 13 circuit board. Following a Freedom of Information request raised by Scottish Nationalist Member of the Scottish Parliament Christine Graham, the Scottish Crown Office has confirmed that evidence item PT-35, the piece of circuit board found by Hayes, was taken for examination to both Germany and the US. Graham claimed that this was done with the knowledge of the then chief prosecutor, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, who recently told a Dutch television company that he was unaware of the fragment’s movements.

Megrahi was released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny Macaskill in August, allegedly on humanitarian grounds. It occurred at a time when the Libyan government had made clear that, if the terminally ill Megrahi had been allowed to die in Greenock prison, British oil contracts would have been imperilled. In addition, Megrahi had agreed to drop a long delayed appeal against his conviction in order to secure his release.

The release triggered outrage from the US in particular and was attacked by President Barack Obama, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the head of the FBI, and the US Joint Chief of Staff amongst many. Commentary went as far as suggesting that the so-called “special relationship” between British and US imperialism, and Scotland in particular, was imperiled.

All this has been forgotten. On September 21, US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly informed the world that the US had “deep abiding ties with Scotland”. Kelly continued, “We are very close allies, and I don’t think we’re looking to punish anybody per se. There’s no tit for tat here”.

Three weeks later, speaking before a meeting with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Clinton stated, “I have a special relationship with the prime minister. And of course, I think it can’t be said often enough, we have a special relationship between our countries”.

What was said between the two regarding Lockerbie is not clear, but the meeting came immediately prior to the British government’s decision to send an additional 500 troops to Afghanistan. Brown has subsequently ruled out a public inquiry into the bombing, while the Scottish government have denied they had the power to hold an authoritative inquiry in the first place.

Clinton also called in the Libyan government, speaking for 15 minutes en route to Egypt with Libyan Foreign Minister and former intelligence chief Musa Kusa. According to US Assistant Secretary Philip Crowley, the two talked of “Sudan, Darfur, cooperation about terrorism and the possibility of advancing our relationship”.

Crowley claimed that Megrahi was not discussed, lamely stating that “the Libyans understand our concerns about Megrahi very, very well”.

19 comments:

  1. This was a good review of Gareth Peirce's flawed but nontheless interesting article which I suspect was largely ghost-written for her.

    Steve James refers to George H.W. Bush's instructions to Margaret Thatcher to "low-key" the Lockerbie investigation. Unfortunately while this may or may not be true it is not evidence.

    I would take exception to the statement "following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991". The invasion was in August 1990. This is not nitpicking but undermines the claim that it was the Gulf War that radically changed the focus of the investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. BAZ: “…I would take exception to the statement "following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991". The invasion was in August 1990. This is not nitpicking but undermines the claim that it was the Gulf War that radically changed the focus of the investigation.”
    A short timeline of this part of the Lockerbie aftermath events tells us this:
    2 August 1990: The Saddam regime attacks Quweit.
    15 September 1990: State secretary James Baker visits Syria. Baker demands the extradition of the PFLP-GC leadership and asks Syria to join the Anti-Saddam alliance. Syria joins the alliance but denies the extradition of the wanted persons. President Assad argues that there is not sufficient evidence for an extradition.
    15 November 1990: CIA, FBI, Scottish and Swiss police interview Mr. Bollier in Switzerland.
    16 November 1990: USA again demand the extradition von the PFLP-GC leadership. Syria again turns down the demand.
    20 December 1990: The CIA activates their old contact Giaka. After having spoken to him the CIA intends to bring Giaka to the USA as a witness. In order to please the CIA Giaka tells his fairy tales and finks his old collegues. According to Mr. Marquise Mr. Megrahi is identified as a Libyan intelligence officer.
    14 January 1991: Scottish police again interviews Mr. Bollier in Switzerland.
    11 February 1991: The FBI interviews Mr. Bollier in the USA.
    15 February 1991: A photo of Mr. Megrahi is shown to Mr. Gauci. He “identifies” Megrahi.

    Conclusion: One cannot say that the focus was immediately changed from Syria to Libya. And certainly not on the level of FBI and Scottish police.
    Though on the level of the CIA there definitely was a change. So Mr. Giaka was interviewed about Libya and Lockerbie. the CIA results were then "translated" into the police investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. Adam:

    10 September 1990, Police Label no. DP137, from Dumfries 6 Galloway Constabulary, Memorandum from Expert Allen Freaday (RARDE) an Police Inspector William Williamson, about a green circuit board (MST-13 Timerfragment).
    The date of the Label No. DP137 was manipulatet: overwritten and put back on the date of 15 September 1989 !!!

    More criminal maniulations coming soon..

    Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wasn't aware that Mr Baker had demanded the extradition of the PFLP-GC leadership. Is this information in the public domain? If this is true was Mr Baker really seeking their extradition or was this a bargaining position?

    I do not dismiss your argument and will give it further thought. There is a basic problem with a "timeline". They are selective and subjective. Mr Bollier is interviewed and Mr Giaka "activated" subsequent to the invasion of Kuwait. Mr Gauci "identifies" Megrahi on the 15.2.91. But is this a consequence of the invasion of Kuwait or would it have happened anyway?

    However your "timeline" agrees with the point I made. I recall Ms Peirce's ghostwriter claiming the indictment of the two Libyans in November 1991 arose from the invasion of Kuwait in August 1991. Promises may have been made to Syria and Iran but the surprise indictment of the two Libyans was not announced until eight months after Saddam Hussein was ejected from Kuwait.

    I have no doubt geopolitics played a role in the Lockerbie case (and have argued this was not a crime but a grisly excercise in International Relations). I am sure the American administration wanted better relations with Syria and Iran (and an end to the hostage crisis.)

    My point is the evidence against Mr Megrahi could not have been improvised subsequent to the invasion of Kuwait. The "clothing" his visit to Malta on the 20-21/12/88. Mr Bollier's comment above is unclear but I thought it was accepted that the evidence of the MST-13 timer was discovered (or planted) in 1989 although there are two versions as to who discovered it and when. The arrest of the two Libyans in Senegal supposedly in possession of MST-13 timers. The "evidence" of the "rogue suitcase" story from Malta emerged in September 1989.

    As I have argued in my article Lockerbie -Criminal Justice or War By Other Means the timing of the indictment was related to the objective of imposing UN sanctions which was unfeasible before changes to the security council w.e.f. the 1.1.92 and may have had a lot to do with the forthcoming US Presidential Election and George H.W.Bush's plans for his second term. I may be wrong but that is my interpretation of the situation.

    However we agree Kuwait was invaded in 1990 not 1991!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I realize many people do not want to accept the fact that it was the EVIDENCE--not current politics, the Gulf War, better relations etc which drove the investigation. The indictment of the two Libyans may have been a "shock" to the rest of the world but it was not to us who were involved in the investigation. You tend to forget that it was the one and only Edwin Bollier who told us in January 1989 that he believed it to be a Libyan operation. The only problem was that dot had yet to be connected. I find it difficult to comment on a bogus article published in a "socialist" magazine. You are probably right--I doubt Peirce did not personally write the article as she probably has no idea what the facts are.

    ReplyDelete
  6. PS: Certainly it was Mr. Baker´s first aim to get Syria into the alliance. And surely he used the Lockerbie affair as a lever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn Mr. Richard Marquise:

    Mr. ex FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise.
    Endlich geben Sie zu, über die Kontakte (Fang-Brief) von mir an die CIA, seit Januar 1989 informiert gewesen zu sein! Wieso haben Sie Ihren Kollegen bei Scottish Police bis am 14.-16. Januar 1991, diese geheimen Kontakte unterschlagen ?
    This affair must employ you extraordinarily ???

    Bei einem Interview zwischen Ihnen und Dr. Ludwig Debraeckeleer, im Jahre 2008, haben Sie verneint etwas über diese CIA Kontakte, bis Anfang 1991, gewusst zuhaben ! Was kann man Ihnen eigentlich noch glauben?

    Davon kann abgeleitet werden, dass Sie den Agenten kennen, welcher mich am 30. Dezember 1988, bei MEBO AG aufsuchte und mich aufforderte einen Bref an die CIA zuschreiben !!!
    Im Weiteren wurden alle Untersuchunsbehörden, FBI, Scottish Police, Swiss Police (BUPO), BKA sowie das Libysche 'Supreme Court', ab 1991,
    7 bis 8 Monate vor der Eröffnung des US und UK indictments, von mir persönlich über diese Angelegenheit aufgeklärt.
    Somit sollte der CIA Brief keinen Einfluss auf das Indictment gehabt haben, wenn bei Ihnen alles mit korrekten Dingen abgelaufen ist?

    Ein Meer von Lügen, bitte lesen Sie: Eine überzeugende Betrugs Studie über das PT-35 (MST-13 Timerfragment) für die letzten "Ungläubigen".

    Die Konfrontation zwischen der regulären Chronologie (1989 bis 2000) des MST-13 Timer Cirquit Board (Prototype) bis zum, angeblich in Lockerbie aufgefundenen, PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit Board und >>>
    der gefälschten und manipulierten Chronologie (1989 bis 2000) des PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit Board, der Experten Tom Thurman (FBI), USA, Dr. Thomas Heyes und Allen Feraday, beide von (RARDE) UK, ist in Arbeit und wird demnächst publiziert.

    coming soon:
    A convincing of fraud study of the PT-35 (MST-13 timer fragment) for the last "Non-Believers".

    The confrontation between the regular chronology (1989 to 2000) of the MST-13 timer cirquit board (prototype) up to, allegedly in Lockerbie found, PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit board and > > >
    the falsified and manipulated chronology (1989 to 2000) of the PT-35 (MST-13) Circuit board, from experts Tom Thurman (FBI), USA, Dr. Thomas Heyes and Allen Feraday, both of (RARDE) U.K., is in work and publishes soon.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello Mr. Marquise, fine to know that you are still here!
    I surprises me, though, that you kept so silent when Mr. Megrahi´s representatives revealed the documents concerning the Gauci-Brothers´ interest in money and the handling of that by the investigators. I have also longed for your explanation of the changing mind of Mr. Gauci.
    By the way: Is there anything in my timeline that you want to question?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Baz makes very good points. The salient evidence does appear to have existed well before anyone was saying anything about Libya, and indeed much of it existed early enough to make speculation about fabrication rather fanciful.

    He noted.... "I thought it was accepted that the evidence of the MST-13 timer was discovered (or planted) in 1989 although there are two versions as to who discovered it and when."

    The timer fragment appears to have been photographed on (or before) 12th May 1989, so unless someone can show that the provenance of that photograph is suspect, then any fabrication must pre-date that. As the photograph is not a polaroid, therefore should have a negative, one may assume it would be difficult - or at least extremely dangerous - to try to fake this.

    There is certainly a lot of weirdness surrounding that item, and Dr. Hayes's behaviour on 12th May 1989 is frankly bizarre in a number of respects, but that date seems on the evidence of that photo to be genuine.

    I'm aware of the McColm/Gilchrist on 13th January version of the finding of the fragment. I'm also aware that version took a long time to emerge. Which is itself a bit odd as their signatures are clear enough on that label. Baz, what is the other version you refer to?

    ReplyDelete
  10. MISSION LOCKERBIE, attn. ex FBI Task Force chief Richard Marquise.

    Mr. Richard Maquise, you can not digest probably the following ! Cutout from your own
    "Logbuch", Scotbom, " Evidence and the Lockerbie Investigation":

    +++ Williamson said that Allen Feraday, the forensic examiner, hat sent a fax to Henderson in January 1990, about items he found blasted into a Slalom shirt. The most significant item was a fingernail size chip, green in color, with solder for a circuit on one side only. This chip became known as PT-35, the evidence designation placed on it by the Scots. He spoke of the efforts which led us to MEBO, one familiar to the Swiss.
    Cretton* expressed his concerns and those of Bollier. The first was that the CIA had planted the chip in the wreckage found at Lockerbie. Henderson and I told him this thought had also crossed our minds. Neither of us believed the CIA or any government official would do such a thing, but we had discussed the possibility. Henderson was convinced of the veracity of PT-35, the way it had been found, logged in and the fact it had not been identified even by the forensic examiners until January 1990. +++

    PS. *Cretton was the Swiss Police Commissioner.

    MEBO say: Thus it is proven that the additional Examination page 51, of Dr. Thomas Hayes and Feraday' s of 12 May 1989, was later written, and manipulated accordingly !!!
    Mr. Marquise, notice you, the fragment PT-35, by Scottish police, Inspector Keith Harrower, on 27 April 1990, brought itself to company Siemens AG, to Germany. There, PT-35 was sawed into two parts: Part, No. 353= PT-35 (a) and part, No. 419= DP-31 (a).

    A sea of lies, published shortly...

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

    ReplyDelete
  11. To Rolfe, I hope to come back to that valid point of yours and of BAZ. But I have to pause for few days.

    ReplyDelete
  12. But the Times and The New York Times were already being briefed about a Malta connection in October 1989.Surely as soon as Malta was suspected as the bomb source, Libya would come into the frame.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr Marquise, could you please give us chapter and verse on Mr Bollier`s incrimination of Libya in 1989? Also , I believe you recently mentioned he had gone to an embassy somewhere, prior to Lockerbie, and had given a specific warning? If my memory is accurate on that one, what are the details?

    ReplyDelete
  14. As Professor Black notes in his latest post the indictment was announced on the 14th November 1991and President Bush made his famous comment about the "bum rap" shortly afterwards.

    I objected to Ms Peirce's claim that "following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991" (and the claim that Vincent Cannistraro was brought out of retirement to pursue the new focus of the investigation.)

    It appears to me that some people (including Ms Peirce's ghostwriter) have deliberately or mistakenly represented the invasion to have occurred in (August?) 1991 because it fits the theory that the supposed change in focus was to exonerate Syria in order that Syria participate in the Gulf War coalition.

    I presume "Syria" participated because it was in her national interests to do so.

    According to Adam's "timeline" the formidable and astute James Baker wasn't offering to exonerate Syria at all but (according to the "timeline") was demading the extradition of the PFLP-GC leadership! (The Syrians may have pointed out that the chief suspect was under the protection of their No.1 enemy Jordan.)

    Adam's "timeline" also notes significicant developments with the key witnesses Bollier, Gauci and Giaka. There developments did not come in the days and weeks following the invasion but only started three months later. The CIA contacted Giaka 140 days after the invasion.

    I see no haste to announce an indictment of the two Libyans and believe an indictment could have been announced far earlier than it was. Having abandoned an objective investigation the Police were left to thrash around until August 1989 with Khreesat as their prime suspect before being pointed towards Malta.

    The central point I was making was that while a correlation between the Gulf War and the (supposed) change in focus would fit if the invasion was in 1991 in fact the invasion was a year earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I would agree with Richard Marquise that it was the evidence (or at least some of it) that drove the investigation. (Evidence the bomb was introduced at Heathrow was rubbished or ignored).
    I cannot agree that the "Libyan solution" had nothing to do with politics.

    If it just about the evidence would he agree that the identification of Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothing was, in his own word, "tenuous"?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think a distinction needs to be made between evidence suggesting Libya might have been involved, and evidence that Megrahi put the bomb on KM180 at Luqa.

    The former could well be arguable. The evidence for the latter is risible, however.

    Air Malta was able to show beyond any reasonable doubt that there was no unaccompanied bag on that plane.

    The orphan bag seen in the mysteriously-retained Erac printout could have been anything. It could have been introduced at station 206 at Frankfurt de novo, either legitimately or illegitimately. Even if it was illegitimate, smuggling happens - there's no evidence it was the bomb. It could have been a legitimate bag taking the "scenic route" round the Frankfurt baggage system. Was the suggestion that it was actually a bag belonging to a Pan Am pilot, sent ahead unaccompanied and found on the ground at Lockerbie, ever refuted?

    Gauci's identification evidence was so obviously pressurised by the police to give the answer they wanted. Nobody impartial reading that evidence could possibly believe it was an identification "beyond reasonable doubt", and frankly I don't even see a probability that the purchaser of the clothes was Megrahi. The probable date of the purchase and the initial description of the age and build of the purchaser are against it.

    And as for Giaka - well, even the court couldn't keep up the pretence that his evidence was reliable. If Peter Fraser had got his way and kept the CIA documents about that secret, we might all be sitting here convinced of Megrahi's guilt. But the documents were revealed, and the clearly demonstrated that Giaka's evidence was produced to order to please his CIA handlers and keep the money and privileges coming in.

    I don't know why it doesn't seem to bother Mr. Marquise that the CIA was manipulating and fabricating evidence in the person of Giaka. I don't know why it didn't bother the court more than it seemed to. Oh well, I do really. A bit embarrassing to have run that three-ring circus and not brought in a conviction, no?

    So much for the evidence against Megrahi. It's smoke and mirrors that vanish when light is shone on it. If there was anything better, or even anything more, why wasn't it brought to court?

    So, Mr. Marquise, tell us about this evidence that convinced you. Because I for one am not seeing it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BAZ: "...Adam's "timeline" also notes significicant developments with the key witnesses Bollier, Gauci and Giaka. There developments did not come in the days and weeks following the invasion but only started three months later. The CIA contacted Giaka 140 days after the invasion."

    For a huge bureaucratic apparatus like the American that is an extremely quick reaction.
    Certainly Amercian intelligence had other priorities in the first weeks and months after the Iraq invasion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Adam writes - "Certainly American Intelligence had other priorities in the first weeks and months after the Iraq invasion."

    So exonerating Syria and Iran wasn't a top priority. Isn't that what I am saying?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Trying to fit the indictment with the switch away from Syria seems to be missing the point. The indictments were the culmination of quite a long chain of inference evidence-building.

    According to Paul Foot, the first press report to name Libya was l'Express, in September 1990, reporting that the timer fragment had been identified as a Libyan device. By December 1990 the Independent was writing articles about conclusive proof that Libya was the culprit.

    This almost seems too early to be motivated by events surrounding the Gulf war, if we assume that the idea didn't spring fully-formed the minute Saddam moved into Kuwait in August.

    ReplyDelete