Thursday, 22 July 2010

How Megrahi and Libya were framed for Lockerbie

[This is the headline over an article by Alexander Cockburn on The First Post website. It reads in part:]

Amid all the bellowing about the release on compassionate grounds of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the bombing of PanAm flight 103 in 1988, all current commentary ignores the hippo in the room - which is the powerful evidence that Megrahi was innocent, framed by the US and British security services and originally found guilty because Scottish judges had their arms brutally twisted by Westminster. The conviction was one of the great judicial scandals of the 20th Century.

The original Lockerbie trial took place in 2000, in Zeist, Holland. It was presided over by three Scottish judges who travelled to the Netherlands courthouse, convicting Megrahi and acquitting his colleague, Lamen Khalifa Fhimah.

In a trenchant early criticism of the verdict, Hans Koechler, a distinguished Austrian philosopher appointed as one of five international observers at the trial by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, issued a well-merited denunciation of the judges' bizarre conclusion.

"In my opinion," Koechler said, "there seemed to be considerable political influence on the judges and the verdict." Koechler queried the active involvement of senior US Justice Department officials as part of the Scotch prosecution team "in a supervisory role".

In essence, the case was based (a) on the presumption that the bomb timer on the PanAm plane was from a batch sold by a Swiss firm to Libya; (b) that fragments of clothing retrieved from the crash site and identified as having been in the suitcase that contained the bomb had been bought by the accused Megrahi from a shop in Malta; and (c) that a "secret witness," Abdulmajid Gialka, a former colleague of the accused pair in the Libyan Airlines office in Malta, would testify that he had observed them either constructing the bomb or at least seen them loading it onto the plane in Frankfurt.

The prosecution was unable to produce evidence to substantiate any of these points or to encourage any confidence in Gialka's reliability as a witness. The Swiss manufacturer of the timer, Edwin Bollier, testified that he had sold timers of a similar type to the East Germans and conceded, under cross-examination by defence lawyers, that he had connections to many intelligence agencies, including not only the Libyans but also the CIA.

By the time of the trial, Gialka had been living under witness protection in the US. He had received $320,000 from his American hosts and, in the event of conviction of the accused, stood to collect up to $4 million in reward money. (...)

The prosecution's case absolutely depended on proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Megrahi was the man who bought the clothes, traced by police to a Maltese clothes shop. In 19 separate statements to police prior to the trial, the shopkeeper, Tony Gauci, had failed to make a positive identification of Megrahi.

In the witness box, Gauci was asked five times if he recognised anyone in the courtroom. No answer. Finally, the exasperated prosecutor pointed to the dock and asked if the man sitting on the left was the customer in question. The best Gauci could do was mumble that "he resembles him".

Gauci had also told the police that the man who bought the clothes was 6ft tall and over 50 years of age. Megrahi is5ft 8in tall, and in late 1988 he was 36. The clothes were bought either on November 23 or December 7, 1988. (...)

Megrahi was in Malta on December 7 but not on the November date. The shopkeeper recalled that the man who bought the clothes also bought an umbrella because it was raining heavily outside. Maltese meteorological records introduced by the defence showed clearly that while it did rain all day on November 23, there was almost certainly no rain on December 7. If it did rain on that date, the shower would have been barely enough to wet the pavement. Nevertheless, the judges held it proven that Megrahi had bought the clothes on December 7.

No less vital to the prosecution's case was its contention that the bomb that destroyed PanAm flight 103 had been loaded as unaccompanied baggage onto an Air Malta flight to Frankfurt, flown on to London, and thence onto the ill-fated flight to New York. In support of this, prosecutors produced a document from Frankfurt airport indicating that a bag had gone from the baggage-handling station, at which the Air Malta bags (along with those from other flights) had been unloaded, and had been sent to the handling station for the relevant flight to London.

But there was firm evidence from the defence that all the bags on the Air Malta flight were accompanied and were collected at the other end. Nevertheless, the judges held it proven that the lethal suitcase had indeed come from Malta. (...)

The most likely explanation of the judges' decision to convict Megrahi despite the evidence, or lack of it, must be that either they panicked at the thought of the uproar that would ensue at the US end if they let both the Libyans off, or they were simply given their marching orders by high authority in London. English judges are used to doing their duty in this manner.

Back in 2000 a former CIA official told my brother, Andrew Cockburn, who undertook an investigation of the case for our newsletter CounterPunch – the factual substrate of these observations - that he had taken part in the original investigation of the PanAm bombing. He said that if the original CIA report was ever to be made public, it would provide "damning evidence" that "the Libyans were never directly involved in the Lockerbie bombing." In fact, the evidence in the CIA's possession pointed more clearly in the direction of the original suspects in the case, members of a group known as the PFLP-GC, closely linked to Iran.

The Iranians had a clear motive for an attack on an American airliner, following the destruction of an Iranian Airbus over the Persian Gulf carrying 290 passengers, including 66 children, on July 3, 1988.

The initial US and British investigations pointed clearly to a case against the Iranians as having contracted with the Lebanon-based PFLP-GC, or a section thereof, to exact retribution.

Two months before Lockerbie, the West Germans arrested members of this group outside Dusseldorf as they were preparing bombs specifically designed to bring down airliners. US intelligence had traced a payment of $500,000 into the account of a professional bomber, Abu Talb, in April 1989.

A British journalist showed the Maltese shop owner who sold the clothes found in the PanAm bomb-suitcase a photo of Talb, and he declared that the man in the photo "most resembled" the purchaser. At one point, the Scottish police were about to charge Talb who had, since 1989, been serving time in a Swedish jail for a series of bomb attacks in Sweden and Denmark.

In March 1989, however, Margaret Thatcher called President GWH Bush to discuss the case. The two leaders agreed it was important to "cool it" on the Iranian angle, since they were in no position to punish the Tehran regime, which had just survived the eight-year war with US/UK-sponsored Iraq.

1 comment:

  1. It's a pity so many otherwise good articles get basic facts wrong, as this does. Giaka didn't say he saw Megrahi and Fhimah loading the bomb at Frankfurt, this was supposed to have happened at Malta, as is acknowledged later in the article. A proofreading error perhaps, but a bad one.

    Gauci never said it was raining "heavily" on the evening of the purchase, merely that is was drizzling. The question is whether the undoubted presence of such drizzle on 23rd November is what he was referring to, or the mere 10% chance of a few spots of rain on 7th December. Bringing heavy rain into it only confuses the issue.

    Gauci himself offered the information that the person he was referring to was "the one on the left". (Well done Tony, a 50/50 chance, except you always said the purchaser was clean-shaven and the one on the right has a luxurious moustache....) This identification is shaky enough without misrepresenting it - doing that only leaves readers who investigate the facts the impression that your entire case is grossly exaggerated and mis-represented.