[This is the headline over a report by Lucy Adams in today's edition of The Herald. It reads in part:]
Gareth Peirce, one of the UK’s most high-profile lawyers, has described the Lockerbie case as a shocking “wrongful conviction”.
Ms Peirce, who is famous for her involvement with cases such as those of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Tipton Three, is now working with relatives of some of the victims of the tragedy.
The Herald revealed yesterday that Dr Jim Swire, whose daughter Flora was among 270 people who died in the 1988 tragedy, and relatives of 10 other British victims were working with Ms Peirce to use human rights legislation to force the UK Government to allow a public inquiry.
Speaking to The Herald yesterday, Ms Peirce said she believed the relatives had been “cheated” by being denied access to the details of what happened.
“I have looked at the case and the transcripts and was simply appalled at the echoes of classic wrongful convictions – including the same methodology and same personnel in terms of forensic scientists,” she said. “I was quite shocked at how much of the case seemed blatantly wrong.
“It blazes out that this is a wrongful conviction. That is not to say that addressing the conviction and addressing the need for an inquiry are an exact equation, but if this is the basis upon which he was convicted, in my view the relatives have never had the true picture placed before them.
“They have not had their right under international law, where there has been an unnatural death, to have a proper, independent inquiry into what happened. It seems to me they have been cheated.
“In other cases where evidence has been questioned or demolished, it has been deemed appropriate to have far-reaching public inquiries. At the very least that is what the relatives of the victims of Lockerbie deserve.” (...)
Lawyers say that under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which pertains to the right to life, there is also the right to an inquiry into how that life was taken.
Ms Peirce added: “If there was one unnatural death, particularly where the state may have had a role in adequately investigating the circumstances, they are responsible for correcting that and putting in place an adequate inquiry. The Fatal Accident Inquiry was completely circumscribed in what it felt it was allowed to look at. Its remit was very narrow because of the ongoing criminal investigation.”
Some of the British relatives believe a public inquiry offers the last realistic hope of finding out how and why their loved ones perished.
In his open letter to President Obama Dr Swire wrote that "any unbiased reader of her article published in the London Review of Books will see some of the reasons why the Megrahi verdict is being increasingly criticised."
ReplyDeleteMs Peirce's article was reprinted in the Independent on Sunday (20th September 2009) under the title "Guilty? Judge for Yourself".
On the 22nd August 2009 the Independent had published Robert Fisk's article "For the Truth look to Tehran and Damascus not Tripoli" which featured a number of claims about Khalid Jafaar (whose involved wittingly or unwittingly was found to unsupported by evidence by the CCRC.) This included the gem that "the bag that contained the bomb was actually put on the baggage carousel for checking-in by this passenger's Lebanese handler"!
I do not claim to be an unbiased reader - I believe Al-Megrahi was indeed "framed".
An unbiased reader in possession of the facts may conclude that Ms Peirce's article made a powerful argument as to why so-called "miscarriages of justice" occur. (Lockerbie I suggest is a very special case.) They may agree she made some very good points in relation to her area of expertise notably RARDE. The points about Thurman have rather less relevance as Thurman (and many other "investigators") didn't give evidence.
However they may also judge that some of her claims were factually untrue (Cannistraro being "brought out of retirement) and the simple correlation of the "switch" to Libya as a consequence of the invasion of Kuwait is unsupported by the chronology.
They might also find the case she constructs against Abu Talb is far from being the full picture and is far more tenuous than the case against Mr Al-Megrahi.
Above all they may find she has applied a different standard of proof to her own claims than she has to the official version of events and allegations she has made particularly in respect to Major McKee and the claim a Police Officer told a scottish farmer the white powder he had recovered was heroin. In doing so she has seriously undermined her own credibility.
Doubtless the authorities will argue there has already been a proper inquiry and a trial.(The David Kelly case is now of interest). I note the Human Rights Act was enacted in 1998 which would seem to be a major obstacle to challenging the 1990 Fatal Accident Inquiry.
Perhaps Lucy Adams could put some of these points to Ms Peirce rather than just being in the PR business.
ps.Happy Hogmany Quincy!
When did people actually start saying "Happy Hogmanay"? It sounds like something someone who knew nothing of the Scots New Year would think might be said.
ReplyDeleteAnd a guid New Year tae ane and a, when it comes.
Sorry, I didn't mean that light-hearted comment to be a thread killer!
ReplyDeleteI hope Miss Pierce starts to look at the actual evidence, rather than simply latching on to popular conspiracy theories about what happened. Propounding alternative theories that themselves turn out to be horse-feathers doesn't advance the situation any, and doesn't do Megrahi's case any good.
How about pointing out that it's only possible to assert that Megrahi got that case on to KM180 by postulating comprehensive forgery of documentation and perjury on behalf of the Maltese authorities - a conspiracy that never cracked despite multiple conspirators, intensive investigation and questioning my a number of investigating authorities, and many years passing.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find that to be a bigger "conspiracy theory" even than the Jafaar bag-switch hypothesis. However, I wonder if the Camp Zeist judges actually thought that's what happened (despite no evidence being led to that effect). Their hand-waving away of the Luqa baggage evidence was absolutely incomprehensible.
Then of course there's the matter of the non-identification of Megrahi by Gauci, and the $3 million and so on. All solid points, resting on evidence, and untainted by speculation.
The simple fact is, "Megrahi didn't do it because Joe Bloggs (or Ahmed Jibril or the SA apartheid regime or whoever your pet bogey-man is) did" is a plain stupid way to attack this case. As is accusations of falsification of evidence, which may be very difficult to substantiate and as such will only leave you looking stupid.
Megrahi didn't do it because the evidence against him is fatally flawed, and in fact exonerates him rather than incriminating him. That's the first thing that needs to be established. Only then can the question of who actually did it be reasonably investigated.
Rolfe, I like how you've been re-explaining that theory. Makes me almost want to re-write my post "while Malta slept?" I have some diabolical ideas... e-mail me if that sounds intriguing.
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact is, "Megrahi didn't do it because Joe Bloggs (or Ahmed Jibril or the SA apartheid regime or whoever your pet bogey-man is) did" is a plain stupid way to attack this case. As is accusations of falsification of evidence, which may be very difficult to substantiate and as such will only leave you looking stupid.
I agree and disagree. That special dfense of incrimination may not have been able to work with the Zeisy judges, but it should have worked with reasonable to people by offering a HIGHLY plausible alterante narrative and grounds for "reasonable doubt." In itself it doesn't prove anything, but alongside illustration of the frailty of the evidence against Megrahi, .
As for arguing fabricated evidence, apparently the judges as well as the public will NOT accept any notion the evidence itself is inauthentic. So arguing such can be counter-productive and lead people who already dismiss you to call you really loony and dismiss you easier yet. Nonetheless, I have to argue what I believe, and this stuff just just points too well at Megrahi/Libya, and that isn't accident. Planting explains the various "flaws" with the evidence and the epic slant of the playing field that led to the conviction from fiction.
I just can't bring myself to accept as genuine and try to dance around something I have no real love or trust for. The case is bogus, it's an evidence-led case, the conclusion is clear, IMO. Only for argument's sake do I (frequently) suspend that belief and entertain the evidence as possibly genuine.
The "happy hogmanay" was addressed to a particular individual who took offence at my scoffing at the petition to the UN General Assembly signed by the co-authors of "Cover-up of Convenience" and the lady who writes for Private Eye.
ReplyDeleteRolfe wrote "Megrahi didn't do it because the evidence against him is fatally flawed and in fact exonerates him rather than incriminates him".
Indeed - he had a cast-iron alibi. He was in Malta at the time.
However to claim Megrahi is innocent because somebody else did it is not "a plain stupid way to attack this case." Advancing a credible alternative (as opposed to a hoax or a hunch) perhaps even "the truth" is not a prerequisite but I suggest should have gone hand in hand with testing the "official version" of events.
Many commentators such as Ms Peirce are baffled as to why Megrahi was convicted on the evidence presented. (The special defence of incrimination didn't even feature Marwan Khreesat or the person who introduced the primary suitcase at Heathrow but instead gave credence to the claim the bomb was introduced at Malta!)
May I suggest again that the verdict was coloured by the Judges collective loathing of "Camp Zeist" a judicial experiment they were determined should not repeated. I think they were determined to convict if they possibly could and a debate as to the sufficiency of evidence to some extent misses the point.
.
I have re-read Ms Peirce's article. It isn't too bad although there are a lot of unsubstantiated and confusing claims. (para.35 - "A secondary important proposition for the Crown to consider was that the suitcase was on the second layer of a luggage container on the aircraft - which meant that it must have come from Frankfurt." )
(I was also baffled as to what "UN observer" Hans Kochler objections to the Camp Zeist trial were at para.40 -41). I also noted Majid Giaka didn't rate a mention.
Ms Peirce did write (para.9) "all the Toshiba radio-cassette bombs that had been seized (one actually!) were found, when tested, to run for 30 minutes after they were set" and (para.11) "The fact that the explosion took place exactly when one would have expected it to if a Toshiba cassette bomb had been used was ignored". (This is a point Dr Swire has repeatedly made.)
Why spoil your argument by repeating the fantasy that drugs were recovered at Tundergarth?
I agree to a large extent, Baz, but I stand by my original point.
ReplyDeleteIf you make the incrimination of a third party a major plank of your case, you had bloody well better be able to prove the other guy did it. Otherwise you mire your argument in a side-channel, and risk confirming your opponents in their original opinion if you fail to prove your case in that respect. I agree, the fact that there is evidence pointing elsewhere is suggestive, however there is a huge downside to making a big point of it - especially when the orginal investigating team insist they followed up that line of enquiry at the time and couldn't make it stick. It's a hostage to fortune, frankly.
As is the accusation that evidence has been fabricated. I've pointed out before that the "red-circle" picture of the MST-13 fragment appears to support a date of 12th May 1989, assuming its negative exists with the proper provenance. (And while I have no information about the negative, I find it hard to believe that forensics officers would fabricate evidence which could be shown to be fake by the simple expedient of checking the date on a photographic negative.) This places the fragment early in the chain of events, and tends to validate Hayes's notes of that date, misnumbered pages or not.
In addition, it's plain to see by close inspection of that picture that the fragment it depicts is the same item as the fragment exhibited in court. This simply knocks on the head all Ebol's protestations and theorising about later substitutions and other improbable fakery. I think it's highly dangerous to claim the fragment was fabricated without addressing these points. Again, it risks confirming your opposition in their original opinion when you fail to show that the fragment has been planted.
(I still think it was planted, but I wouldn't base any argument on that claim unless I was able to show where the chain of evidence actually has a hole in it, and I haven't identified such a hole.)
In contrast, pointing out that Tony Gauci never positively identified Megrahi as the purchaser of the clothes (and that the purchase almost certainly took place on 23rd November, not 7th December) is clear, unambiguous, and carries no hostages to fortune.
The same can be said for going after the Luqa baggage records. The provenance of these records, in contrast, seems virtually unassailable. So what were the Camp Zeist judges saying? "Oh well, maybe he slipped the suitcase in somehow, all the same"?
That's ridiculous. Why have evidence if you're just going to handwave away bits of it you don't like?
"Yes, but Vincent Cannistraro told us off the record that he knows for a fact that the Maltese airline and airport security was entirely bought and paid for by Gadaffi, and the baggage records were a complete fabrication. He's not going to produce any evidence of that, but he knows that's what happened."?
?
That's a bigger Conspiracy Theory than the ones that are being scoffed at. If it's even remotely true, it's a howling scandal. (That judges were swayed by a tale for which no evidence was forthcoming.)
Make these points forcefully enough to be listened to, and let fabricated fragments and murderous Palestinians take a back seat, and you're far more likely to be listened to.
Dear Rolfe:-
ReplyDeleteSave for pointing out that the Police made an enormous blunder in "eliminating" Heathrow I have tried not to get bogged down in the miniutae of evidence.
However I did point out in my article The Bombing of UTA772 the discrepancy between the accounts of Feraday and Hayes (one of many key issues that came up in David Leppard's invaluable book.)
Without getting into a pointless debate while the clothes appear not to have been purchased on the
7th December I don't think you can say they were "almost certainly" purchased on the 23rd November either. (see Megrahi's website).
With the supposed dismissal of the evidence of Majid Giaka Gauci's evidence assumed far greater importance than it would have otherwise but in what appears to be an earlier "draft" (see The Revelations of Vincent Cannistraro in my UTA772 article) the purchaser was merely a junior accomplice of the principal bombers.
Were the Camp Zeist Judges saying
"oh well, maybe he slipped the suitcase in somehow all the same"?
As Megrahi's guilt was assumed or proven on other grounds and the Judges accepted the Frankfurt "rogue suitcase" evidence that would seem to be what they were saying. As I have repeatedly pointed out I believe Their Lordships were determined to convict if they possibly could so that "Camp Zeist" would never be repeated.
In respect of "Heathrow" the authorities did not "follow-up that line of enquiry". They abandoned it in the face of compelling (in my view irrefutable) evidence to pursue a theory (Frankfurt and the PFLP-GC) that was later also abandoned.
When I pointed out to the authorities in 1996 that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow the response from people like Moatboy was (a) mind your own business and (b) wait for the trial. The bomb could not have been introduced at Heathrow because it was introduced at Malta. I take the reverse view. Of course the prosecution case was stronger on paper than in fact and they had the evidence of an eye-witness, Majid Giaka.
It is unfortunate that the prominent alternate version of events advanced by Aviv,Francovich,Coleman, Foot, Ashton, Ferguson, Heather Mills (and many others) and lately Ms Grahame was a hoax, a fantasy.
The Crown Office were able to dismiss The Maltese Double Cross as the only point at which the "drug conspiracy" evidence could be tested it was blatantly fabricated. As I presume the Police had also interviewed Jim Wilson they were then able to claim that there was no alternative to the official version of events.
My suggestion was dismissed because the Fatal Accident Inquiry had concluded (in my view on no evidential basis)that the primary suitcase had arrived unaccompanied on flight PA103A but may not have started it's journey there. The FAI was rigged to agree with a version of events yet to be revealed.
Thanks for the reply, Baz.
ReplyDeleteSave for pointing out that the Police made an enormous blunder in "eliminating" Heathrow I have tried not to get bogged down in the miniutae of evidence.
I have to agree the elimination of Heathrow was a bad mistake. Do you know on what basis this was done? I always assumed it was because the bulk of the baggage in AVE4041 came off PA103A, however it's a bit obvious that still leaves the handful of cases that were in the container before it was taken out to PA103A, including the mysteriously appearing Samsonite and its mate. Certainly, it was reasonable to say that the bomb suitcase wasn't checked in at Heathrow, but that's not the same thing.
I can imagine that the Met were all too happy to go along with any suggestion that the suitcase wasn't introduced on their patch (though of course it was, nevertheless, as Maid of the Seas was loaded from empty at Heathrow, if you look at it that way). I've also heard suggestions that it was politically expedient to palm the investigation off on the D&G constabulary because of their small size and lack of experience in major cases. The implication being that it would be easier to lead the investigation by the nose and possibly palm off fabricated evidence if they were in charge. This is a bit too "conspiracy theory" for me, but you never know.
However I did point out in my article The Bombing of UTA772 the discrepancy between the accounts of Feraday and Hayes (one of many key issues that came up in David Leppard's invaluable book.)
I think you have to get into "the minutiae of evidence" at this point. The whole Feraday/Hayes/Thurman unholy trinity stinks to high heaven. In fact it begins earlier than that, with serious question marks over the integrity of McColm, the policeman who countersigned the evidence bag containing the fragment, and reason to doubt whether he was even out in the field collecting evidence.
However, all the discrepancies and anomalies in the world don't advance the argument an inch if in fact the fundamental facts cannot be undermined. I repeat, I don't know what the hell was going on with that fragment, especially Hayes's behaviour, but unless I can make a plausible case for saying it could have been introduced into the chain of evidence at a particular time and in a particular way, I think I'd be very wary of cavalier assertions that it was fabricated.
Without getting into a pointless debate while the clothes appear not to have been purchased on the 7th December I don't think you can say they were "almost certainly" purchased on the 23rd November either. (see Megrahi's website).
I certainly concede that point. I should have said that the overwhelming thrust of the evidence presented suggests a purchase date of 23rd November. However, I have days when I wonder whether these clothes were ever purchased from Gauci at all, or whether he was just very suggestible and anxious to please in interview (with an eye on enormous wealth too, of course).
With the supposed dismissal of the evidence of Majid Giaka Gauci's evidence assumed far greater importance than it would have otherwise but in what appears to be an earlier "draft" (see The Revelations of Vincent Cannistraro in my UTA772 article) the purchaser was merely a junior accomplice of the principal bombers.
Indeed, the whole conceit that Megrahi did all of this single-handed is perverse. Why would the same person (a senior intelligence operative too, not a henchman) buy the clothes and put the bomb on the plane?
Were the Camp Zeist Judges saying "oh well, maybe he slipped the suitcase in somehow all the same"?
ReplyDeleteAs Megrahi's guilt was assumed or proven on other grounds and the Judges accepted the Frankfurt "rogue suitcase" evidence that would seem to be what they were saying. As I have repeatedly pointed out I believe Their Lordships were determined to convict if they possibly could so that "Camp Zeist" would never be repeated.
My own feeling is that they were determined to convict because the sheer embarrassment of going through that entire three-ring circus for nothing, never mind ten years of sanctions on Libya while we were being told that the evidence was "overwhelming" if only the case could be brought to court, was more than they cared to contemplate.
In respect of "Heathrow" the authorities did not "follow-up that line of enquiry". They abandoned it in the face of compelling (in my view irrefutable) evidence to pursue a theory (Frankfurt and the PFLP-GC) that was later also abandoned.
It was the Frankfurt and the PFLP-GC line of enquiry I was talking about when I referred to this being followed up. It's dangerous to base one's case on a declaration that Ahmed Jibril and his merry band were the culprits, when the investigating authorities have already stated that they tried hard to pin it on them and failed.
When I pointed out to the authorities in 1996 that the bomb was introduced at Heathrow the response from people like Moatboy was (a) mind your own business and (b) wait for the trial. The bomb could not have been introduced at Heathrow because it was introduced at Malta. I take the reverse view. Of course the prosecution case was stronger on paper than in fact and they had the evidence of an eye-witness, Majid Giaka.
Well, I suppose that depends on who you are. I suspect most theorising proffered by lay people will elicit a recommendation from the authorities to mind one's own business. I suspect the Scottish authorities believed Giaka to be credible, and were shocked to their little cotton socks at the revelation he was making it up as he went along. The odd thing is, the judges rejected his evidence, then went on to behave, in some respects, as if they hadn't.
I take the view that the bomb wasn't introduced at Malta because the evidence of the Air Malta baggage records says it wasn't. And luggage tray 8849 on the Erac printout could have been any number of things. I'd have liked to see a much deeper investigation into what happened at Heathrow, that's for sure.
It's odd how four separate threads of this case converge on Malta though. The clothes in the suitcase were of Maltese origin. The orphan luggage tray on the Erac printout appeared to be part of the luggage unloaded from KM180. Megrahi was at Luqa on the morning of the bombing. And Abu Talb had a houseful of clothes acquired in Malta, at his residence in Sweden. Curious. How much of this is coincidence, and how much not?
It is unfortunate that the prominent alternate version of events advanced by Aviv,Francovich,Coleman, Foot, Ashton, Ferguson, Heather Mills (and many others) and lately Ms Grahame was a hoax, a fantasy.
It is unfortunate that the Jafaar bag switch hypothesis has had such a wide airing. I agree, I don't believe that was how the bag got on the pane either. However, I don't necessarily equate an investigative journalist being wrong, with hoaxing and fantasising. Reconstructions are a standard part of documentaries, and if a film-maker creates a reconstruction of something which they are mistaken about, this is not necessarily fraud.
And the whole drug courier angle may be more important than we realise, even if it had bugger-all to do with how the bomb got on the plane.
The Crown Office were able to dismiss The Maltese Double Cross as the only point at which the "drug conspiracy" evidence could be tested it was blatantly fabricated.
ReplyDeleteIt was a reconstruction of what Francovich thought had happened. Being wrong and "fabricating" are not necessarily the same thing.
As I presume the Police had also interviewed Jim Wilson they were then able to claim that there was no alternative to the official version of events.
All we know about Jim Wilson is that he clammed up tighter than a duck's arse very early in the proceedings. Why he did that, and what he said to the police or they to him can only be a matter for speculation.
My suggestion was dismissed because the Fatal Accident Inquiry had concluded (in my view on no evidential basis)that the primary suitcase had arrived unaccompanied on flight PA103A but may not have started it's journey there. The FAI was rigged to agree with a version of events yet to be revealed.
Nobody wanted to embarrass Heathrow. And the Scottish authorities didn't want to hand over this huge case to the Met. Oh dear.
I don't know how that bomb got on the plane or who put it there or how, but even figuring out how it didn't happen is a start.
Did the Met want to take this huge case with their other commitments particularly in relation to the IRA? Did they want to be in charge of a huge crime scene hundreds of miles away? Leppard's "On the Trail of Terror" notes the antagonism between the Scots and the Met officers who were removed from the LICC. Would the Scots report to the Met?
ReplyDeletePerhaps Jim Wilson felt he had said what he had to say in his statement and was tired of being bugged by journalists.
"It was a reconstruction of what Francovich thought had happened"
What is that supposed to mean? Does that constitute evidence? It is OK to fabricate evidence for some sort of symbolic truth?
"Being wrong and fabricating is not necessarily the same thing". I know. I suspect much that could not be tested was also fabricated i.e."Mr Goldberg" and the supposed "Jafaar family member" but only at the single point where it could be tested was it "blatantly fabricated".
"even figuring out how it didn't happen is a start". I agree. That is why I feel it necessary to point out that the "drug conspiracy theory"is a hoax. Why do you object to Patrick Haseldine's theory?
Rolfe: Why not comment on my website and we can stop hogging Professor Black's?
ReplyDeleteDo I know on what basis this was done? (the "elimination of Heathrow"). Well I wrote an article Lockerbie - The Heathrow Evidence based on the many fascinating revelations in David Leppard's book, to me a record of how the investigation went wrong.
Orr claimed that "evidence from witnesses was to the effect that the first seven bags in AVE4041 were Interline bags." This was untrue, a lie. The witnesses had said no such thing. Orr assumed that the two "extra" bags were Interline bags without being able to actually prove it.
Of course we do not know what briefings were being given by the "intelligence services" to steer the case in the right direction. We know the FAI was used to do so.
Yes the investigative authorities tried hard to pin it on the PFLP-GC but only if the bomb was introduced at Frankfurt. They did not or would not consider that a "Khreesat" bomb was introduced at Heathrow which is why the investigation came to a dead end.
The authorities may find it irritating for a layman (I was a CID officer with a lot of relevant experience!) to offer the opinion that the Police had made a colossal blunder in eliminating Heathrow. I continue to believe I was right. I was merely testing PM Major's claim that the investigation was "open" and his invitation for those with relevant information to "come forward."
When I was a policeman I had some involvement with a major criminal prosecution in which two of the defendants were prosecuted in the political interests of No.10.to facilitate a Civil action. (Other defendants in the case had fled after being corruptly tipped-off by a senior Legal Department official.) After two years of the prosecution case the single Judge ruled all defendants had no case to answer. He didn't mind the "sheer embarrassment".
I think Their Lordships primary objective was to defend the principal of Judicial Independence which was threatened by "Camp Zeist".
There is a difference between being wrong and creating evidence to "prove" your theory. The scene in question, LeWinter's ludicrous
"Hotel room" scene was blatantly fabricated.
Baz and Rolfe are more than welcome to continue their debate on this blog. I would be sad to lose their extremely valuable and pertinent contributions.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: I wish all friends and foes (well, not really all) a happy new year! Let us hope that 2010 will bring a breakthrough to the truth. I pin my hopes to the release of the SCCRC documents.
ReplyDeleteDear Rolfe you write: "I've pointed out before that the "red-circle" picture of the MST-13 fragment appears to support a date of 12th May 1989, assuming its negative exists with the proper provenance. (And while I have no information about the negative, I find it hard to believe that forensics officers would fabricate evidence which could be shown to be fake by the simple expedient of checking the date on a photographic negative.) This places the fragment early in the chain of events, and tends to validate Hayes's notes of that date, misnumbered pages or not."
Maybe you then could explain the following: Let us assume that the timer fragment was actually found on the 12th of May 1989 when examining the collar of a shirt collar residue, where miraculously the label "slalom" had survived to identify the shirt. Why did it then take one year until Toni Gauci suddenly on the 10th of September remembered that he had sold two shirts to the purchaser? The first interview with Gauci was on 1st of September 1989 and they could certainly have asked for a "slalom" shirt if the 12th of May is right.
Sorry, I omitted the year: "...Toni Gauci suddenly on the 10th of September 1990 remembered that..."
ReplyDeleteThank you, Professor Black. We all appreciate the invaluable platform for discussion you provide here.
ReplyDeleteAdam - "just Adam" - (it's confusing having two Adams here....)
ReplyDeleteMaybe you then could explain the following: Let us assume that the timer fragment was actually found on the 12th of May 1989 when examining the collar of a shirt collar residue, where miraculously the label "slalom" had survived to identify the shirt. Why did it then take one year until Toni Gauci suddenly on the 10th of September remembered that he had sold two shirts to the purchaser? The first interview with Gauci was on 1st of September 1989 and they could certainly have asked for a "slalom" shirt if the 12th of May is right.
That's just one of the numerous anomalies connected to that fragment. It's bristling with the things. Agatha Christie would have been embarrassed to include a clue with so many pointers to its bogosity. It seems inconceivable that anything attached to so many "WTF?" circumstances could not be a plant. As a result I regard it with an extremely sceptical eye. I do feel that eventually, it will become clear what was going on in that respect, and it won't be pretty. However, strong feelings of doubt about a clue's provenance do not proof of fabrication make.
I began by trying to figure out just how far back in the chain of evidence we could find proof that the fragment actually existed. I was working on the hypothesis that the evidence label from 13th January (with its altered description), Hayes's notes dated 12th May (which are deeply strange in more ways than just the misnumbered pages) and Feraday's memo to Williamson dated 15th September, were created retrospectively to provide a plausible provenance for the fragment within the Lockerbie evidence. I was assuming that the "red-circle" photo could have been taken at any time by simply arranging the contents of that evidence bag, and so the date wasn't very relevant. I was also slightly misled by Mr. Bollier's repeated description of the photo as a "polaroid" (which of course would have no negative and no provenance within a roll of film and so could not be dated conclusively).
However, there is nothing to suggest that that photo is a polaroid, and indeed it specifically does not have the appearance of a polaroid. It appears at one point to have been issued to the press (it is reproduced in Private Eye for example). Thus, it follows that it has a negative, and that the position of the negative in the appropriate roll of film should provide evidence of the date on which it was taken. Anyone working in forensics understands the implications of rolls of developed film, still in the order in which the pictures were taken, in dating a photograph.
I am grateful for poster Dan O. at the JREF Forum for spotting the important point. The photograph could not have been taken at any time just by assembling the contents of the evidence bag. The photograph as presented must have been taken before Dr. Hayes's examination of 12th May.
ReplyDeleteOne of the items picked out of the cloth was a compacted fragment of the Toshiba's manual, five pages thick. As part of his examination, Hayes teased out and separated these pages, and drew the markings on them. However, in the photograph, the pages are seen still compacted into a single block. Thus the photo appears to have been taken before the pages were separated. Thus, on or before 12th May. And the fragment in the picture is identifably the same item as the fragment exhibited in court. Ergo, that fragment was present in the chain of evidence on 12th May 1989.
Of course that chain of reasoning depends on the negative of the red-circle picture showing the expected provenance. If it doesn't, all bets are off. But until we find that the negative doesn't exist, or has a provenance that doesn't support 12th May or earlier for the picture being taken, we can't plausibly allege the fragment was introduced into the chain of evidence later than that. No matter how many suspicious anomalies there are.
Baz.
ReplyDeleteThey did not or would not consider that a "Khreesat" bomb was introduced at Heathrow which is why the investigation came to a dead end.
Yes, that is bizarre. The timing of the explosion is bang on for a Khreesat device loaded at Heathrow. And Bedford saw a bronze Samsonite suitcase in pretty much exactly the right place to be the bomb bag, and nobody knows where it came from or if it was x-rayed.
And it's perfectly possible, indeed likely, that the loaders putting the Frankfurt bags in the container shifted it to the second payer when they were repositioning the bags at that stage (which they would have done, as Bedford had set the bags on end, and every container I've ever seen fully loaded has had the cases lying flat).
I just have trouble believing it's that simple.
Agatha Christie would have scorned such an obvious solution!
"I just have trouble believing it's that simple." Why not? Without David Bedford this would never have been known.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Leppard Bedford saw the two bags "flat". Flat side by side or flat one on top of the other? (According to the AIIR the centre of the explosive event was just 10.5 inches from the ground.) It was Feraday and Thurman who conducted the tests that supposedly eliminated the two "Kamboj" bags. The crux of the matter is that this brown or maroon samsonite was not recovered and linked to a particular Interline passenger.
I suppose many people think the central "question" of Lockerbie is who built the bomb, and how where and by whom was it introduced? Actually I think the central question is the extent of official collusion.
In 1987 (the year before Lockerbie) there were a series on bombings in Hong Kong claimed by the "Hong Kong Terrrorist Association" when I was away on leave. This was a big case and the Governor promised the people of Hong Kong the culprit(s) would be brought to justice.
On my return to Hong Kong I resigned and never returned to duty. One day I bumped into an old friend Dorian who was in charge of the HKTA case. We had worked in the same unit several years earlier.
I asked him about the HKTA's motive and he said it was to prove he was cleverer than the Police. I recalled that somebody had told me a few years earlier of a mutual acquaintance who had committed some crimes solely to show he could not be caught and suggested he was the bomber.
Dorian thought about this for a microsecond and said "no-couldn't be". He explained the suspect they were looking for was Chinese but spoke good English, had a grudge against the Police and was an expert chemist. I pointed out that my "suspect" was Chinese but spoke good English and had an incredible (if unusual) grudge against the Police. I also pointed out to Dorian something he obviously didn't know about our mutual acquaintance - he was a Graduate Chemist! Dorian thought about this for another microsecond and said "no-couldn't be".
Despite devoting almost unlimited resources to the case it was never solved. Perhaps it could be just that simple!