[This is the heading over the latest addition to the Lockerbie series on Adam "Caustic Logic" Larson's blog The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill and Beyond. The admissions come from Detective Inspector Harry Bell and from Paul Gauci, brother of Tony, and relate to the date of purchase in Mary's House, Sliema, of the clothes that, in the official explanation of the Lockerbie disaster, were in the brown Samsonite suitcase along with the bomb. It was essential to the prosecution case against Megrahi that the date of purchase was shown to be 7 December 1988 (when Megrahi was on Malta) and not 23 November (when he was not).
The following are excerpts from the blog post:]
Detective Inspector Harry Bell, who headed the Scottish police effort on Malta and was the main contact point for the Gaucis, was interviewed in 2006 by the SCCRC [Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission]. Some extracts were re-printed in Megrahi's rock-solid grounds of appeal. Excerpts from there:
DI Bell SCCRC interview (25-26/7/06)
"...The evidence of the football matches was confusing and in the end we did not manage to bottom it out..."
"...I am asked whether at the time I felt that the evidence of the football matches was strongly indicative of 7th December 1988 as the purchase date. No, I did not. Both dates 23rd Nov and 7th Dec 1988 looked likely.
"...It really has to be acknowledged how confusing this all was. No date was signficant for me at the time. Ultimately it was the applicant's [Megrahi’s] presence on the island on 7th December 1988 that persuaded me that the purchase took place on that date. Paul specified 7th December when I met with him on 14th December 1989 and I recorded this..."
The bolded is a shocking admission of just what many had guessed. And then, almost as an afterthought (and a quick one I'd venture) "Paul specified 7th December" as the right day, during a meeting of "14th December 1989." He even has the date memorized! No direct quotes provided there of this meeting. But two months earlier, in a 19 October meeting with the same Harry Bell, he clearly specified the other day. In a police report obtained by Private Eye and published in Paul Foot's 2000 booklet Lockerbie, the Flight from Justice, Mr. Gauci said:
“I was shown a list of European football matches I know as UEFA. I checked all the games and dates. I am of the opinion that the game I watched on TV was on 23 November, 1988: SC Dynamo Dresden v AS Roma. On checking the 7th December 1988, I can say that I watched AS Roma v Dynamo Dresden in the afternoon. All the other games were played in the evening. I can say for certain I watched the Dresden v Roma game. On the basis that there were two games played during the afternoon of 23 November and only one on the afternoon of 7th December, I would say that the 23rd November 1988 was the date in question.” [Foot, 2000, p 21]
Indeed shocking news for all who still believe in the honesty of the police investigators in this case.
ReplyDeleteBut I have my problems with the date 14 December 1989. In those days, I think, Harry Bell did not know anything about the existence of Mr Megrahi.
December 1990 (or even January 1991) would be more fitting.
I understand that there are no original files that can verify the date (and content)?
I think Dick Marquise would confirm that the sate of the 7th December was focused on because of "other circumstantial evidence."
ReplyDeleteI personally suspected that the 7th December was the date of purchase, not because Megrahi was the purchaser but because he was in the area at the time (i.e.it was part of a fit-up).
Indeed as Harry Bell says the evidence of the football matches was confusing and I believe I am right in saying that Mr Megrahi's Appeal team disputed that the purchase date could only have been the 23.11.88 or the 7.12.88 only that it could not have been the latter.
Only with the dismissal of Giaka's evidence did the representation of Gauci's evidence (that it was Megrahi who personally bought the clothing) become of central importance.
ps. Rolfe - I think the key word is "untimately" and Bell's date may be correct.
ReplyDeletepss.Sorry Adam not Rolfe!
ReplyDeleteFrom the Zeist trial:
ReplyDelete(Keen cross-examines Bell)
Q:You were carrying out investigations in Malta in 1990 and 1991: is that correct?
A:That´s correct, sir. Yes.
Q: And at the beginning of 1991, your attention began to focus upon Abdelbasset Megrahi and Lamen Fhimah, the two accused?
A:That´s correct, sir.
(page 7777)
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteSince August 1990, definitely a wrong date was created (7th of December, 1988) in order to accuse deliberately the libyan official Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi as the buyer of the cloths in "Mary's House".
A further proof from MEBO that the sale of dresses in Anhony Gauci "Mary's House" took undoubtedly place on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988 by a unknown buyer:
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.
Court at Kamp van Zeist, Excerpt:
+++
MR. CAMPBELL: The next witness is 606, Paul Mallia.
THE MACER: Paul Mallia, Your Lordship.
WITNESS: PAUL MALLIA, sworn EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY MR. CAMPBELL:
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.
+++
MEBO:
Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi was not in Malta on Wednesday, 23th of November 1988, thus Mr. Megrahi is definetely not the buyer of the dresses !
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO LTD, Switzerland
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteTony Gauci's first statements without outer influence by police officers:
+++
1) The sale was midweek,Wednesday, I think on November or December 1988.
2) The sale was made before the Christmas decorations went up.
3) The weather was like when the man came to the shop? -- When he came by the first time, it wasn't raining, but then it started dripping. Not very -- it was not raining heavily. It was simply --
it was simply dripping, but as a matter of fact he did take an
umbrella, didn't he? He bought an umbrella.
+++
MEBO say: On Wednesday afternoon, November 23, 1988, Gauci's brother Paul did not work in Mary's House. He went home to watch a football match on television. On Wednesday November 23, 1988, Radio Televisione Italiana (RAI 1, RAI 2, RAI 3) broadcaosted the football match Dresden - Roma. Channel RAI 3 for example broadcoasted the two halftimes in two parts starting at 16:55 hours local time, finishing at 17:44 hours local time and between 17:58and 18:44 hours local time.
The day after December 7, December 8, 1988 was an official public holiday and the "Mary's House" was closed. Gauci could not remember at a public holiday after the visite of the alleged clothes buyer!
As example, the day after November 23, November 24, was not an official public holiday, "Mary' s House" was open, as Gauci remembered precisely.
There was some very light rain on 23th of November 1988 from 18:00-19:15, while there was no rain on 7th of December 1988, from Mark Vella, Managing Director, METEOMALTA, also confirmed at the Trial Kamp van Zeist, from ex witness number 03, Major Joseph Mifsud chief meteorologist at the meterological office at Luqa Airport in Malta.
Were the Gauci brothers influenced by Henry Bell Scottish Police officer, to tell what he wanted to hear?
Excerpt, trial Kamp van Zeist, witness no. 344 Mr. Henry Woods Bell:
+++
Q-- (Mr. Harry Bell) Did you have Mr. Gauci read the statement before he signed it? A-- No. Mr. Gauci could not read English, and the statement was read out to him. And he signed it. Q-- And in what language was the statement read out to him? A-- In English. Q-- In English... !!!
+++
by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
Thanks all for the thoughts.
ReplyDeleteI haven't studied the pajama's aspect yet, since we already have plenty good points. It might be worth looking at, but Ebol's the only one I've seen mentioning it, so I'll call it good enough just this side of that line...
On statement read back in English, some people can understand it spoken, but not read it. Especially slow people like Tony Gauci. Read in English with a thick Scottish accent though? I don't know.
NME Adam said:
But I have my problems with the date 14 December 1989. In those days, I think, Harry Bell did not know anything about the existence of Mr Megrahi.
December 1990 (or even January 1991) would be more fitting.
I understand that there are no original files that can verify the date (and content)?
Okay, I certainly can't prove my assertion that
It's hard to say who knew of what and whom just when, but Megrahi was first mentioned to the CIA by Giaka in December 1988, I think before the bombing, and Fhimah two months earlier. Explosives were already mentioned in connection with the latter, in October. See:
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2010/01/three-year-test-drive.html
Other clues I'll find as I go, but Rolfe and I have been over the issue of how early they might have been trying to implicate Libya and/or Megrahi. I suspect quite early, Role had at least then suspected I think mid-1990. I suspect the MST-13 was introduced before May 12 89, wherever exactly they got it - they just waited to "realize" it too pointed to Libya. Other evidence fell into place during the year, from perhaps late January, and by September they had the whole Malta story worked out - purchaser of clothes semi-IDd, bag from there demonstrated, and Giaka's Malta stories that ran parallel, and I don't see how the two could not merge. True, Giaka himself added key details like the brown samsonite only later, in mid-91 shortly before the indictments his enhanced stories allowed. But still...
Further, circumstantially, the embarrassments of Khreesat and London were known early, and so would the need for a workable scapegoat. Libya apparently topped the list and was probably in play, at least as a plan B or C, from about the beginning.
Above, the assertion I can't prove or even type I guess:
ReplyDeleteBy December 1989 at the latest, they were trying to implicate al Megrahi, and had been trying to long enough that Paul Gauci had taken the hint.
Baz said:
I personally suspected that the 7th December was the date of purchase, not because Megrahi was the purchaser but because he was in the area at the time (i.e.it was part of a fit-up).
That makes a certain amount of sense, but there are the clues of the day. I'm personally ambivalent as to whether Gauci ever sold those clothes to any terrorist. They may have all been planted later, etc. Gauci was apparently recalling a real day, however, and it's Nov. 23. Perhaps a purchase of some kind that day that evolved, or just a day and the whole purchase was fictionalized. There aren't many Wednesdays in late Nov/early Dec but before the Christmas lights go up, when it's raining and Paul's at home watching a game at about 6:50 pm. That narrows it down to Nov 23 pretty soundly. Whatever really happened that day.
Dec 7 was simply made to appear the date, as an after-the-fact frameup, and barely even by the Gaucis themselves.
Indeed as Harry Bell says the evidence of the football matches was confusing
Maybe confusing to him, but I don't think so. One occurred right at the time he was gone, the other game finished four hours early, meaning he was gone at something else after. So it's possible it's the 7th, if the other clues didn't already say no way. He only feigns confusion, IMO, to make the tie-breaker of Megrahi's presence seem less unjustified.
and I believe I am right in saying that Mr Megrahi's Appeal team disputed that the purchase date could only have been the 23.11.88 or the 7.12.88 only that it could not have been the latter.
That's how defense teams wirk, isn't it? Stick all they need to show, not to get at thhe full truth or best all around answer. They just say "it's not this one."
Only with the dismissal of Giaka's evidence did the representation of Gauci's evidence (that it was Megrahi who personally bought the clothing) become of central importance.
Too true. The "real star witness," as Conspiracy Files put it, as if that was their plan all along. But there's nothing really shiny about his evideence at all, whenn you get a clear look at it. Some people just allow thmselves to be dazzled, I guess.
ebol said:
ReplyDeleteTony 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.
Okay, fair enough to repeat the claim if you yourself had found it out. Congratulations. If that's true, it's another good clue for 23 November. Unless they want to argue he ran out again and ordered more on Dec 8 as well.
MISSION LOCKERBIE:
ReplyDeleteMysterious one: Scottish Inspector William Williamson was asked at the court in Kamp van Zeist over the Circuit board mark Thüring received from Bollier MEBO. With notes from Williamson' s Notbook.
Excerpt Court Kamp van Zeist:
+++ Q-- I see. Thank you. So on this occasion in May (1991), you were permitted to view Mr. Bollier's premises. Q-- What was it you collected? A--I was shown 12 printed circuit boards, sir. Q--Yes. A--Of that twelve, two -- there were two different types. There were six of each type.
Q-- And did you remove all of those printed circuit boards?
A-- No, sir. Mr. Bollier requested that he retain one for his own purposes. This is one that he explained to us he had carried out some flame tests on, and he showed us a burning on this circuit board.
Q-- And you were able to take the others? A-- Yes, sir. Q-- Would you look for me at Labels 431, 432, and 433.
A--Yes, sir. These are -- Q--Are these some of the circuit boards removed -- A-- They are, sir, yes. Q-- Would you look for me at Label 434 and Label 435. Is Label 434 four printed circuit boards, Mr. Williamson?
A-- Label 434, sir, says on the label that it is four circuit boards. There are only three circuit boards in the package.
Q--I'll come to that just in a second. Thank you. And is 435 three printed circuit boards? A-- It is, sir, yes. Q--Thank you. Can you tell me, please, what the police reference number on Label 434 is?
A-- DP 347. Q--Thank you. And keeping that in front of you, would you look at Label 412. What's the police identification reference on that label, Mr. Williamson?
A-- DP/347(a). Q-- So that's the same as the reference on 434, but with the addition of the letter "(a)"?
A-- Yes.
Q-- Have you signed the label that's attached to 412? A--No, I have not, sir.------
Q-- So it says "Found DP/347"? A-- Yes, sir. Q--I see. And that's Label 434, which contained the indication of four printed circuit
boards, but only three within it? A--That's correct, sir.
+++
MEBO: Wie ist es möglich, dass unter dem erstellten Polizei Label No.434 datiert mit 24/5/1991, 4 Stück MST-13 Circuit Bord's als DP/347 registriert wurden, aber nur 3 anwesend waren und mit einem neuen Label, mit der früheren Nummer 412, das fehlende Produkt DP/347 unter der Referenz DP/347(a) angeblich aufgefunden wurde?
Ich, Bollier leite davon ab, dass mit diesem Circuit Board, nach meiner Beurteilung, das Timerfragment's PT/35(b) am 14.September 1999 in Dumfries ein zweites grünes Circuit Board, PT/35(b) DUPLIKAT erstellt wurde, welches am Gericht in Kamp van Zeist als Beweis vorgelegt
wurde !
Ist das Label 312 ein weiterer Betrug und musste damit das fehlende DP/347 "gedeckt" werden?
Das Polizei-Label 312 muss wie das Label PI/995, das Label DP/137, das Memorandum vom 15. September 1989, die Examination-Seite No.51, die Fotographie Ref. PP'8932, PI/995 und anderes Material verfälscht worden sein !!!
by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
The four-pack thing is interesting. 11 confiscated, four listed as PD/347 (the other 7?) and then only three were there later. (?) It's off topic, except that I mentioned my hunch the fragment was on hand by May '89. Again, as usual, Bollier seems to be distracting from this possibility with detailed jabber hinting at later introductions, in 1990, 1991, 1999, as late as possible Scottish police fraud! I take that as faint confirmation of my further hunches about how it got on hand.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else? Baz, if you're still considering 7 Dec, check out this link:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/01/evidence-reconsidered-date-of-clothing.html
attn. Caustic Logic, the other 7 DP/347:
ReplyDelete+++
Q-- would you look for me at Labels 431, 432 and 433. A--Yes sir. These are -----
A-- 431 is one circuit board. Q-- 432, one circuit board? A-- 432, one circuit board, yes. Q-- And 433, two circuit boards? A-- That's correct, sir, yes. Q-- And is 435 three printed circuit boards? A-- It is, sir, yes. Q-- Sorry, did I ask you if 435 was three printed circuit boards? A-- Yes, sir, it is. Yes.
+++
Besides: The MST-13 timer fragment was photographed for the first time at the beginning of January 1990 (FAX), not on 12th May 1989!
The photo PP/8932;PI/995 is a photomontage. The Toshiba green coloured Fragment AG/145 was chanched with the brown coloured MST-13 Timerfragment !
by Edwin Bollier
Attn. Gaustic Logic
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting, how Gaustic Logic to wants defend it's hunch, the MST-13 timer circuit board, already was examined on 12th May 1989 with RARDE!
The cut (Schnittstelle) to the memorandum Feraday/Williamson is not in harmony together with the date of 15th September 1989, but with the date from 10th September 1990! I will make you checkmate together with new proofs...
best Edwin Bollier
ebol:
ReplyDeleteI will make you checkmate together with new proofs...
That's the spirit, dude!
Have some patience with Herr Bollier. His English is not fluent.
ReplyDeleteWhile I said I previously suspected the clothes were purcahsed on the 7th Dec. (in order to incriminate Megrahi) I now accept the evidence is pretty clear that they weren't. (Why no till receipt?)
As I noted in the section "The Revelations of Vincent Cannistraro" in my article on UTA772 the CIA had identified the purchaser as a subordinate of the two different Libyans responsible for the bombing - one of whom gave evidence at Camp Zeist!