Sunday, 6 June 2010

Labour MP calls for Tony Blair to be sacked

[This is the headline over a report in today's edition of the Sunday Express. It reads in part:]

One of Tony Blair’s former ministers has called on David Cameron to put a stop to the former PM’s globetrotting role as Middle East peace envoy.

Labour MP Kate Hoey said he was not achieving anything in the region and questioned why public money was being spent on subsidising his sun- tanning trips.

Former sports minister Ms Hoey, 63, made her comments during a debate about Gaza on [BBC] Radio 4’s Any Questions programme on Friday.

She said: “I probably shouldn’t say this as a Labour MP, but it does raise the question why we are still paying my previous leader, Tony Blair, to be some kind of peace envoy because I’m not quite sure what he’s doing.

“I remember the razzmatazz when he left being Prime Minister and he became this great peace envoy. I imagine he’s paid for it and I imagine one of the things the new coalition government is going to do is sack him.”

When told that Mr Blair is not paid for the position, she said: “Well, I don’t think he travels there in economy or with easyJet.” (...)

Ms Hoey’s comments came as a spokesman strongly denied claims made in a newspaper yesterday that Mr Blair had become a “consultant” to Libyan dictator Colonel Gaddafi. The spokesman said: “Tony Blair does not have any role, either formal or informal, paid or unpaid, with the Libyan Investment Authority or the government of Libya.”

He was responding to claims made by the dictator’s son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, who reportedly said Mr Blair was an adviser to the Libyan Investment Authority, which manages the country’s £65billion of oil wealth.

As prime minister, Mr Blair famously shook the dictator’s hand during a meeting in a Bedouin tent outside Tripoli in 2004. Britain severed relations with Libya after the Lockerbie airline bombing in 1989. The convicted bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was released on compassionate grounds last August.


  1. This is a bit off-topic here, but can I ask all to have a look at what Rolfe and Caustic are saying on the Randi blog. I won't post there as it requires me to be a subscriber, and I try to decline that sort of recognition.

    I think it's Rolfe who says that it's only Mr Marquise who blog comments openly about the orthodox position and supports and has some knowledge. I don't include the likes of Frank Duggan or other anti-Libyan boosters. Stuart Henderson usually stays quiet and only issues threats against people who disagree with him, and since they are threats of murder, perhaps we should take them seriously.

    There is little point in researching the ludicrous claims of a Maltese introduced bomb, so why don't we just forget them. The only clue that makes any sense is the Heathrow break-in of 20 December 1988, deliberately suppressed by the Met SB/MI5, for many years. You can forget about Frankfurt swaps, ingenious though the theory is, which gets rid of all the drug-running evidence.

    But come up with a theory that powerfully implicates Iran, the US Government, the CIA and Pasdaran, though it includes little that is factual, where there are facts none of them are untrue.

    So, why we just forget past theories and work with ones that have a likelihood of being correct.

  2. Charles, I completely fail to see where the "recognition" difference is between a forum and this blog. We already know who you are on this blog! The JREF forum requires that you identify yourself to the admins at registration, but that information is confidential. They will not disclose it. You can pick any pseudonym you like that isn't already taken. (You might not want to mention that you are a previous Stundie winner....)

    The simple fact is that debate is infinitely better facilitated by the forum format. Anyone can start a thread to discuss any aspect of anything, and any thread that acquires a new post comes to the top of the listings. We're not constrained by whatever Prof. Black wants to post, active threads don't disappear from sight, and conversations can continue.

    I was being simplistic about Marquise, but it seems to be a fact. Marquise is the only person I've had an answer from (as to why he believes Megrahi is gulty) and all he said was that the court returned a guilty verdict. That seems to be the full substance of the Official Version supporters. Duggan goes on about all the incontrovertible evidence there is, but he never says what it is.

    I could do a better job laying out a case against Megrahi myself, but I wouldn't convince even me. I think that's why none of them engage with the discussion - they know you can drive a coach and horses through that case. I think the judges mainly went with it because they allowed themselves to believe Gauci's identification, and once you realise how flawed that was, there's really nothing.

  3. Rolfe, your offensive remarks about my views are just that, your views.

    I don't think a lot of the Randi forum anyway, which is why I don't blog there.

    I have engaged with Mr Marquise on a number of occasions and at some length. Unlike you, he has actually complimented me on my depth and clarity of argument.

    I have left it at this position at the moment (a) I cannot convince him my theory is right and (b) he cannot convince me that his is. He has less room to manoeuvre, because he can only defend his one position, but I keep on coming up with points that undermine his like the second explosion overlooked in the AAIB report.

    I think further evidence could have been brought against Mr Megrahi, but it wasn't. Certainly the matter of the bank accounts only came out as Mr Megrahi was being sent back from Scotland to Libya.

    Eight years ago at the trial it would have been a useful fact. Why was it discarded by the prosecution?

    Mr Duggan is the American equivalent of the Soviet apparatchik who spouts propaganda without any understanding of what he is saying. If I were on the VPAF103 committee, I'd recommend firing him.

    Terminate without prejudice, I'd say

  4. Does Mr. Marquise have a position? Other than "oh look I got a conviction", that is?

    Does he believe Megrahi really bought those clothes? Does he believe the entire Maltese baggage handling system was suborned wholesale without one single person breaking ranks in 20 years?

    It wold be useful just to know why he has such certainty.

  5. Mr Marquise consistently holds his position, as he must.

    It was foolish for him, in my opinion, to have written his book Scotbom, for he raises many questions that would have never come to light, or a least would have been only partially illuminated, if he had not.

    The most significant of these is his contribution to the Behbahani story, in which the hero goes to Turkey, interviews an Iranian man too young to have headed Iranian terror (intelligence and security) at the time of Lockerbie, in an Ankara prison (not a refugee camp), about which Marquise makes the offhand remark that there might have been another man of the same name who had been in charge of that organisation.

    It dovetails with the Stahl/Baer/Hakakian story of an interview with an Iranian man with the same name who claimed such a position.

    The important point is that this story came to light at the start of the Zeist trial and Mr Marquise has been detailed by Richard Clarke of the NSC (the White House had never shown any interest in Lockerbie before).

    Americans simply don't known when to shut up.

  6. Mission Lockerbie. Sorry that is only one computers "Babylon" translation german/english:

    Mysterious facts around the RadioRecorder, Toshiba

    "Double sewn keeps better": To entangle Libya obviously into the Lockerbie tragedy not only the fraud with the manipulated MST-13 timer fragment (PT/35) was produced, additionaly a second fragment of a Toshiba of RadioRecorder RT-8016/SF16, which to represent in Libya, was "construct" for a second Link from Lockerbie to Libya !

    "On the 17th of January 1989, some fragmented and charred material was recovered by the AAIB personnel from a metallic side panel of the primary baggage container (AVE 4041 PA) where it had been alleged rammed into the convoluted sheet metal as a result of the explosion?
    One of the charred "original" fragment (AG/145) was a electronic circuit board with a tracking pattern and identification legend 'L106' and perpendicular to these...101' in white printed characters on its upper surface, see photographs no.243 (front) and no.244 (rear).

    It was known that Toshiba brand radio/cassette player, model no. RT-F453D, had been recovered during a terrorist incident in West Germany, and that this unit had been modified as an altude-operated improvised explosive device (IED).
    The possibility that a similar device had been used as the Lockerbie bomb could not be ignored.

    Mysterious one: For what reasons was the radio recorder fragment AG/145 and the MST-13 timer fragment PT/35, with RARDE not examined on explosive-powder ?

    (+++ Excerpt, testimony of witness 386, Dr. Thomas Hayes (RARDE) court Kamp van Zeist:
    Q On the fragments of Toshiba radio cassette, there would have been a realistic prospect of finding traces of explosive residue if these had been
    intimately connected with the explosion, would there not?
    A I don't believe so, sir. The total surface area involved of all of the recovered fragments was relatively small.
    Q And are you suggesting that in solution that would not have been sufficient to throw up evidence in a chemical trace analysis?
    A I wouldn't rule out that possibility.
    Q Well, you did, by not carrying out the analysis, Dr. Hayes, did you not?
    A No. I didn't rule out the possibility. I ruled out the work that would be required.+++

    And excerpt, testimony from witness 355, Allen Feraday (RARDE)
    +++ Q Would you read to us your introduction to paragraph 6.2.

    A (Feraday) "The fragments were recovered from various damaged items of clothing, luggage, and the baggage container in which they had been forcibly embedded by the blast. The nature of these fragments and their distribution leaves NO DOUPT that the explosive charge was CONTAINED within the Toshiba radio." )+++

    After the ultrasonically cleaned charred fragment AG/145 at RARDE laboratoy on January 17-22 January 1989, the WHITE PRINTED CHARACTERS on its upper surface 'L106'...101' and the GREEN COLORED LACQUERED on its rear surface, was always still perfect visible... see photo no.245 (front) and no.246 (rear). That is absolutely not normal and cannot correspond to the truth! That proves that the alleged original fragment AG/145 had charred not before by an explosion!!!

    continuation down >>>

  7. >>> continuation

    Feraday takes a trip to BKA in Germany to compare the alleged fragment AG/145 with the Toshiba RadioRecorder device, recovered in Germany.
    Allen Feraday (RARDE) had then a "marvelous Toshiba inspiration"!
    The fragment did not come from the Toshiba radio recorder RT-F453D, but Feraday knew immediately that the AG/145 fragment was belonged to another type of a Toshiba radio recorder. The continuation of the doubtful investigation is well-known...

    To the memory: Stuart Henderson, Senior Investigating Officer (CIO) said in Gideon's documentary film 'Lockerbie revisited', "no piece of evidence left Great Britain"...
    The Toshiba radio recorder fragment AG/145 was likewise a fraud...

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland

  8. Ebol - very interesting. This fragment-story is only suited for beginners anyway.
    The fragments we are shown are always small pieces, burned in the edges.
    These fragments are supposed to have been in the middle of the explosion of extreme heat or pressure, down in a packed suitcase where heat will build up. If there would be anything left at all, the surface impact would be enormous all over the piece, not just the edge.
    Look at the nice white paint on the fragment of this picture.
    To me it looks 100 times more like somebody broke a circuit board into pieces with a plier and burned the edges to make it look plausible.

    Mr. Marquise, should you read this - thanks to you for joining these discussions, but I always wondered about one thing:

    Were you involved directly in the infamous act of bribing Tony Gauci? I only ask you because your position would make it plausible.

    As I have said earlier - that act also closes the case for me.

    Imagine yourself sitting as a judge in a court. You find out, that the same authority that produce other evidence bribed a witness as well.

    I wonder if there is one single example in the recorded trial history where a judge said "Ah, well, let's go on. We can still trust you as a witness. What else do you claim to have found?"

    Mr. Marquise - were you involved in this? Did you even know that this took place?

    If that would be the case, you - as well as anyone else involved - would be nothing short of a most despicable criminal, only protected because the law does not work for certain american institutions.

    You would be an incredible hypocrite, claiming to seek the opinion of a balanced trial - and at the other hand feeling free to, in the shadows and under the table, clandestinely mess with the course of justice, to get the result you want.

    If not, I deeply and honestly apologize for
    even conceiving this idea.

    The fact remains that Gauci was bribed and that Duggan's team somehow manages to keep this fact out of their head.

  9. Dear sfm,

    May I ask you just to consider what you are asking of Mr Marquise. He was the lead FBI investigator. He presumably has a huge emotional, personal and intellectual investment in the position he holds to the extent that he decided to write a book to explain his role in the investigation.

    Then a lot of inky-fingered oiks like me, you, ebol, rolfe, caustic and Patrick say "hold here" - what about this that and the other. The means by which Mr Giaka or the Gauci brothers were paid for their information - and here I have to say IF THEY WERE - are scarcely to be divulged to oiks like us by Mr Marquise, if and that is the IF - they were true.

    Individually and collectively we are not a police force and if Mr Marquise has done wrong and again I say that is a big IF, it is up to a competent police investigation to tell us.

    At some point incessant pressure may compel someone to break ranks and tell us what we need to know; but remember the story of what went wrong is not in the hands of any one actor; there is no all-seeing Holmes, Poirot or Wimsey to tell us, and so close the last chapter, and there are many actors such as I suggest Mr Henderson who will never have any doubts whatsoever.

  10. As you say, Charles, it isn't a whodunnit. It just feels like it at times - one with real dead people.

    Richard Marquise has however answered the bribery question in at least one documentary. Might be Lockerbie Revisited. He has said most emphatically that no witness was promised money before the trial. And that no witness was given money before the trial. Which really begs the question, quite honestly. He even sounds evasive when he says it, like someone relying on a semantic quibble to maintain a facade of truthfulness over essentialy false statements.

    It's obvious from the evidence that Paul Gauci was very hopeful of getting rich from the affair from the relatively early stages. He is recorded as asking about money and rewards on a number of occasions. The brothers were offered inducements in kind, such as holidays in Scotland, during the case. While it's possible Mr. Marquise is telling the truth that no hard promises of money were made, there's every reason to believe nods and winks were exchanged.

    It's quite obvious from the evidence that Paul was coaching Tony in the hope of a big reward. I think that's the reason for Tony's hesitancy in court. Not that he was being careful to be accurate, but that he was trying hard to remember and follow Tony's instructions.

    And then they did get the money. Which kind of says it all, really. And Charles, there isn't much of an "if" about any of this.

    However, that's not the part of the case that disgusts me most as regards the authorities trying to frame Megrahi. That honour goes to Giaka and his string of porkie-pies, all motivated by getting favours and money and in the end relocation to the USA from the CIA. The astonishing thing is that the depth of that perfidy was revealed in court, and the revelations led the judges to disallow all Giaka's evidence.

    What I will never understand is why they didn't join the dots and realise that if the CIA was prepared to go to these lengths to manufacture evidence against Megrahi, what did that say about the reliability of the rest of it?

  11. I look forward to reading Mr Giaka's memoirs.

  12. Rolfe, do you regard an inducement of the offer of a holiday in Scotland as such? From my memories of holidays there as a child, it was more like a penance while one took cover in the caravan as another storm came over. Mind you Crawford recalls Bollier's fondness for a dram of the yellow fairy-juice, during his visit.

  13. I have translated what 07_TeddyF_Silvey0 writes and it is: "Water is always the same, but every moment of it is new."
    Very profound, but I don't think it gets us much further on Lockerbie

  14. In his book Mr Marquise has gone as far as he could. He admitted that in the end it was his role to "translate" intelligence views into evidence that could be used in court. Since then Marquise has stepped back from what he wrote and he is now a spent horse.
    Giaka is writing his memoirs? And there are people who find that interesting?

  15. But Mr. Marquise's book seems to start with the idea that the investigation would be driven by "facts on the ground" driven by the all consuming god of the HOLMES system.

    It is thus surprising how "intelligence" or fact derived from CIA sources takes over the progression of the case, and Marquise expresses his disquiet with VC on occasion.

    Eventually the chip material is identified in a CIA office by Mr Thurman, who always gives the impression of being like a schoolchild slow on the uptake.

    Remember the phrase the "the Scots went round the world to identify the chip material", but came to no great conclusions until prompted by the CIA.

  16. Dear Charles,

    I am not accusing an particular person of anything. I would never, without strong evidence.

    I am just saying that the bribing af Gauci must have been done with somebody's knowledge. And so I only ask Mr. Marquise because he was in the time, place and position that he was. And state my clear opinion about him, _should_ be involved.

    - - -

    By all standards this bribing is an immense crime. It was crucial in the conviction of Megrahi.

    And with conviction the direct sufferers lost the resources that would have been required to have a chance to get to the truth.

    - - -

    The bribe of Gauci is so large a matter that it would justify its own investigation.

  17. Remember the phrase the "the Scots went round the world to identify the chip material", but came to no great conclusions until prompted by the CIA.

    According to Mr. Marquise's book, Thurman took about 48 hours to identify that timer fragment. You'd almost think he already knew what it was....

    After Feraday passed the matter of the green circuit board over to Williamson in September 1989 (in marked contrast to his personal globetrotting to identify the fragment of the Toshiba's circuit board, by the way), it seems to have been left entirely to the Scottish police to figure it out. This they singularly failed to do. At a case conference in January 1990 Marquise was aware of its existence, but he couldn't get Henderson to let the Americans have a go. He expresses his frustration about this, and the delay it caused.

    It was only in June 1990, at another case conference, that Thurman managed to get hold of a picture of the fragment. (It's disputed whether he ever had the actual fragment in the USA, but that was probably brought over either then or later.) He went straight to his contact in the CIA who knew what it was, and matched it up so quickly that Williamson and Feraday, who were on their way home, pretty much had to turn round at Heathrow and go back.

    There are places where Thurman goes on and on about the long and painstaking process of finding the match for the fragment (months of work, or something like that, must have forgotten his lines), but in Lockerbie Revisited (I think) he essentially says that they knew what it was virtually immediately.

    I always thought he might have restrained himself for a few more days to give it all some semblance of verisimilitude. But then, events in the middle east were moving apace, and he may have been under some pressure.

  18. The bribe of Gauci is so large a matter that it would justify its own investigation.

    I'm sure a lot of people were very relieved when Megrahi dropped that appeal.

    As things stand, the authorities will deny that the Gaucis were ever promised money beforehand, and were merely given a just reward afterwards. However, it does raise a lot of questions. Where does a reward for information end and bribery begin? In my opinion a reward may be due if an informant has given the police information about a new lead which they subsequently verify independently. Giving a witness whom the police themselves have identified and approached money for the "correct" identification is bribery, pure and simple.

    The other point is that the $4 million reward offered was for someone able to assist in the arrest of Fhimah and Megrahi, who were ostensibly holed up and unextraditable in Libya, but who allegedly did sometimes travel abroad. Information saying, Megrahi is in [country with extradition treaty], come and get him. Why would they consider the Gaucis for a reward offered on those terms?

    Of course it should be investigated. But the Gaucis aren't going to co-operate and the authorities are going to stonewall. Without the appeal, how does any investigation get off the ground?

  19. Dear Rolfe,

    you wrote:

    "Richard Marquise has however answered the bribery question in at least one documentary. Might be Lockerbie Revisited. He has said most emphatically that no witness was promised money before the trial. And that no witness was given money before the trial."

    It does not matter when the money was transferred. It is enough that they ever were.

    If the following conditions are present:

    1. A had a strong motive for a certain crime to be commited.
    2. B had the means and opportunity
    3. A is found to have had contact with B before the crime
    4. A has transferred an amount to B at least large enough to be resonable payment for the crime.
    5. A can provide no other good reason for the transfer

    then A is guilty of paying B to commit the crime beyond reasonable doubt, which is the criteria used by courts.

    This is a prima facie case. The burden of proof is on A&B to prove otherwise.

    To that end, statements from A that "B was not promised money before the crime" will carry absolutely zero weight.

  20. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I'm merely telling you what Richard Marquise's answer to that challenge will be. You have as much chance of getting more from him as you had of getting more from Clinton than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

    Without a credible means of holding the authorities to account on this, there's nothing to be done. If the appeal had demonstrated that Gauci had been bribed, and I believe it would have done, events might have flowed from there. However, as things stand, good luck with getting anyone to pay any attention to it all.

  21. Dear Rolfe,

    "As things stand, the authorities will deny that the Gaucis were ever promised money beforehand, and were merely given a just reward afterwards. "

    Nothing would surprise me, but there is absolutely no way that trial witnesses can ever be rewarded by another participant in a case. Only criminals do it.

    Some witnesses could in fact well deserve a reward, often speaking risking their own life. But none of the countries I know about has any system to do so, for the above obvious reasons.

    One could imagine a third party - like e.g. a large newpaper - giving a reward, but even here the accusations is just around the corner, and in all my life I have never heard about a witness in any trial receiving a reward, with one kind of exception:

    The american system - where you can buy yourself freedom to bear witness against another person - it is not exactly renowned for producing more reliable witnesses, which would also be absurd.

    "However, it does raise a lot of questions. Where does a reward for information end and bribery begin?"

    If a person can point the police in the right direction there is nothing wrong in paying him. But the same person then can not be a witness in a trial. As you write:

    "In my opinion a reward may be due if an informant has given the police information about a new lead which they subsequently verify independently. Giving a witness whom the police themselves have identified and approached money for the "correct" identification is bribery, pure and simple."


    "Of course it should be investigated. But the Gaucis aren't going to co-operate and the authorities are going to stonewall. Without the appeal, how does any investigation get off the ground?"

    That how it is. We can convict a man on flimsy and weak evidence.

    But a man who has provenly received money that can only be a bribery, to him we can do nothing at all.

  22. Dear Rolfe, I see that our replies are crossing each others. In any case it seems that we agree.

  23. I get the impression that we are rather like mediaeval theologians dancing on the heads of those pins, but at least we are beginning to sing from the same prayer-book.

    Personally, I think little can be done at the present to get Mr Marquise to face up to what I believe are the holes in the account that from his ex-cathedra position he sees as immaculate.

    He will simply retreat from the issue and then blog blandly again, or be reported in the press at some new public twist in the expiration of Mr Megrahi's life.

    And he has the lock on us. He has public credibility.

    Meanwhile, I have another challenge for the team, not requiring Mr Marquise to be brought into it anyway, as he is essentially small fry in a very technical part of the cover-up. And the cover-up is not the crime.

    How many separate pieces of evidence can you find which point to a second explosion on the aircraft. The proof beyond doubt of even just one these these explodes the case against Mr Megrahi beyond reasonable doubt.

    I count seven different issues, though the team may not quite agree with the number and might think I have fudged one or two together.

    Most are in the AAIB report, which if you have not downloaded and read with extreme attention, including the Appendices, you should now do so before blogging again.

  24. I doubt Mr Giaka is writing his memoirs - he is like Holmes' dog that did not bark. I suspect he is and since shortly after the trial has been in a metabolically challenged situation.

  25. I am sure Mr Giaka will never write his memoirs. He would need an exceptional ghost-writer. And then the story is so thin!

  26. Mr. Jibril, on the other hand....

    Refurbishing: The doubtful UN sanctions against Libya in the Lockerbie-Affair (April 1992- August 1998)

    The people of Libya have suffered, deprieved of their human rights, as the UN-sanctions were put in effect throughout 7 long years.
    Until today with each opportunity Libya is made responsible for the Lockerbie-Tragedy.
    It is high time to banish the Lie over Libya from the world and bring back Libyen and Mr. Abdelbaset Al Megrahi, to his earned honour!.

    At the first hearing on the 19th of October 2007 the Appeal court in Edinburgh suddenly confirmed after more than 3 months the existence of a document "under national security"; but keeps ist content closed.
    Procecuting counsel Ronnie Clancy added that the secret document did not originate from the USA or one of ist agencies as the CIA.

    The following important text unfortunately is in German language.
    Please perhaps someone can translate the text professionally into English?

    Die UN wäre glaubwürdiger und sollte verpflichtet werden Fakts zuschaffen, um das "Document under National Security", welches am 13. September 1996 von einem unbekannten Staat dem Lord Advocate in Scotland zur Entlastung Libyen's übergeben wurde, zu öffnen und die Identität des Staates aufzudecken.

    Background about the "Document under National Security" (Pll):

    Aus dem Dokument soll ersichtlich sein, dass "the crucial evidence, the MST-13 Timerfragment (PT/35)" welches Libyen mit dem Panam 103 Attentat in Verbindung bringt, manipuliert war.
    Wieso wurde bis heute die Geheimhaltung über die Herkunft des Dokument's (Pll) nicht geöffnet?
    Antwort: Weil damit Libya endgültig als unbeteiligt an der "Lockerbie-Tragödie" erklärt werden müsste!
    Für die UN und die Scottish Justice würde es offensichtlich, dass es sich beim Urteil im "Lockerbie Case" um ein "Scottish Miscarriage of Justice" handelt!

    Abgestützt auf Fakts kommen nur zwei Staaten als Lieferanten des Dokuments (Pll) infrage, die Schweiz und Deutschland?
    Nur diese Staaten hatten die nötigen Informationen über die wahre Beschaffenheit des MST-13 Fragments.
    Deutschland durch die forensische Prüfung am 27. April 1990 bei Fa. Siemens.
    Die Schweiz durch die unerlaubte Beschaffung und Auslieferung eines MST-13 Circuit Board (Prototype) am 22. Juni 1989 ihres Offiziellen und die Erkenntnisse von Ing. U. Lumpert (Konstrukteur und Lieferant des MST-13 Timer PC-Boards).

    Nach den Motiven gefragt, ein "Document under National Security" dem Lord Advocate früzeitig zur Verfügung zustellen, kommt nur die Schweiz infrage.
    Wieso: Deutschland hatte kein Motiv ein solches Dokument zu erstellen!
    Die Schweiz hingegen hätte mindestens 3 Motive, sich bis heute gegen eine Öffnung des "Pll" der "Scottish Justiciary" zuwehren:

    Erstes Haupt-Motiv: Aus Angst, nach dem angekündigten "Lockerbie-Gerichtsverfahren" am 1. September 1996, als mitschuldig bei der Beweisfälschung überführt zuwerden, wurde Lord Advocate von offizieller Seite frühzeitig darüber unterrichtet, dass das MST-13 Timerfragment nicht von einem nach Libyen gelieferten MST-13 Timer abstammt. Die detaillierten Fakts um das MST-13 Timerfragment (PT/35) sind bekannt...

    Zweites Motiv: Mit der Überweisung des "Documents under National Security", vor dem Gerichtsverfahren, hätte sich die Schweiz vor einer allfälligen Schadenersatzklage Libyen's, US$ 35-40 Milliarden, juristisch abgesichert.

    Drittes Motiv: Um die kriminellen Hintergründe seiner "Offiziellen" und Ing. U. Lumpert zuschützen.

    Is Leader Gaddafi's call for Jihad against Switzerland to search here, it would make sense... the bells ring...

    by Edwin and Mahnaz Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland,