Monday 9 August 2010

Lockerbie documentary to screen tonight on STV

Almost one year on from Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Al Megrahi’s early release on compassionate grounds, STV is this evening to air a special programme on the disaster and the international investigation which led to the Libyan being convicted of the murder of 270 people.

The Lockerbie Bomber: Sent Home to Die - being transmitted at 9pm this evening - also reports outrage in the US over the Scottish Government’s controversial decision to allow Megrahi to return home to Libya to die. (...)

Narrated by Kaye Adams, one of the first reporters at the scene, this programme speaks to key people involved and charts the story of the Lockerbie disaster from that horrific night on 21 December 1988, through to the Scottish Government’s decision to release Megrahi on compassionate grounds in August last year.

The programme features rarely-seen archive news footage and new interviews with the relatives of the victims, Scottish and American detectives who led the investigation and cancer specialists who examined Megrahi prior to his release, and Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill who defends his controversial decision.

[From a report on the Allmedia Scotland website. The hour-long programme starts at 21.00.

The STV News website has a report advertising tonight's programme headlined "MacAskill: No backroom deal behind Lockerbie bomber's release".]

71 comments:

  1. MISSION LOCKERBIE:

    Yes, Mr. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi denied being a member of the Libyan Intelligence Service; he did not know Abdusamad; and he did not know MEBO (the swiss company that made the timers). All were proven at trial to be lies.
    However, his biggest lie was his claim that on December 20-21 he had not been in Malta-"I was here in Tripoli with my family...believe me."
    Denying movement under a false passport does seem to be a clue of something. He claims he was illegally circumventing sanctions, buying supplies on the black and gray markets of Europe.

    Why should anyone believe any of his claims today after his lies
    in 1991?

    It must be accepted that all lies served for a concealing of an SECRET CRUCIAL FAKT (SCF) of kind, which with the infiltration of a "Bomb Bag" on AirMalta, flight KM-180, nothing to do has!

    Which true facts to favour al-Megrahi's relieve Al-Megrahi ?:

    1) The fact agrees with the date, Wedensday, 23th November 1988, confirms:
    The sale to a unknown buyer in Gauci's "Mary's House" was on Wedensday 23th November 1988 before 19 hour.
    The other date, 7 of December is, no doubt's, wrong and thus Megrahi cannot be the cloths buyers !
    NB: Mr. Abdelbaset al Megrahi, was not in Malta on 23th November 1988.

    2) The alleged "Bomb bag" B-8849 was not from AirMalta flight KM-180, it was a normal on-line bag from Berlin, wrongly coded as inter-line bag:
    Tray B-8849 came from Berlin with flight PA-643 and belonged to passenger no. 131, Misses W. Wagenführ; coded in Frankfurt via counter V3-206, code S-0009+Z1307); (Prod. 1089, PTM-telex from PanAm company, after offbloc PA-643, 11:26 hour in Berlin, text: from flight PA-643 > to PA 103B/21-LHRO/0/1/ B1 > (1 passenger+1 bag > B1) police reference DW 125;
    No doubt's it is wrong al-Megrahi cannot dispatched a bag on AirMalta KM-180, on 21 Dec.1988 !

    3) Denying movement under a false passport does seem to be a clue of something. He claims he was illegally circumventing sanctions, buying supplies on the black and gray markets of Europe.
    If for it the necessary proofs are present (truth) can the statement in favor of Al-Megrahi be.

    4) SECRET CRUCIAL FAKT (SCF)

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd., Switzerland
    URL: www.lockerbie.ch

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just viewing the MacAskill interview on the STV web site. He's equating any interest in a conspiracy with sightings of Elvis working in a chip shop (french fries outlet) in Fife. Yet, he knows the major proponents of a conspiracy were intimately involved in the case to varying degrees and are simply stating that a miscarriage of justice took place and that needs addressing. Hardly nutjobs idling away their time on fruitless conspiracy theories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is quite astonishing that we have MacAskill, the man who released Megrahi, also creating such monumental problems in progressing the whole case to have the original conviction looked at again. That he treats those who want major questions answered with such ridicule is quite disgraceful. His stupidity at the time in having meetings with Megrahi has only raised more questions. His part in the dropping of the appeal hasn't helped either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wonder who the cancer specialists "who interviewed Megrahi prior to his release" will be? Please don't tell me they're going to wheel out Professor S and imply it was on his say so of someone on Libya's payroll that he got out?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just saw a snippet from Tony Kelly, Megrahi's lawyer who is claiming the appeal was dropped because it would have been "too difficult" to win it!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Another snippet.......a man is discussing how everything came together evidence wise and actually says...."You really couldn't make this up." Yes, he actually said that.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He was talking about Tony Gauci reeling off 7 of the 10 items in the bomb bag as things the mystery shopper had bought. I tend to agree with him! But it really does seem as if that bit's on the level.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's not looking good for him...the polis are all saying he's guilty.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The film is a hatchet job. The doubts about the Gauci investigation were just brushed aside. More importantly, not a word about the Malta baggage records, which for me is the thing that really clinches it.

    They're essentially trying to choke off the "conspiracy theories" that are gaining such wide currency.

    ReplyDelete
  10. No, he didn't say that. The QC said in court that Megrahi believed withdrawing the appeal would facilitate his "applications" (plural).

    Kelly said he believed they had a very strong case, and several of the points would have been extremely difficult for the crown to counter. But at the same time he acknowledged that they were going to make a fight of it.

    (I never realised that's what John Crawford looks like....)

    ReplyDelete
  11. And they've also strongly implied MacAskill WAS lobbied by a rep of BP!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, I heard what the QC said in court. That was interesting. It brings us back to whether or not Megrahi was led to believe it would strengthen his case.

    I see Sikora made an appearance although I thought his input was helpful. I worried initially that they were going to imply he wrote the report telling MacAskill Megrahi was ready to keel over but fortunately that didn't happen.

    The other thing that bugged me was the harping on about the three months thing. And the statement that compassionate release was based on a 3 month requirement. It isn't. Its just a guideline.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh and Rolfe.....did you hear them stressing that an unaccompanied bag travelled from Malta to Frankfurt to Heathrow?????? I had read that all bags from Luqa were accompanied AND collected by their owners?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Yes. The baggage records are actually the important thing as far as exonertaing Megrahi is concerned.

    He didn't buy the clothes. End of story, frankly. Not a word about the discrepancies in the identification, the statement that Abu Talb looked more like the purchaser than Megrahi, or even the problems with that photospread, like Tony originally saying it was none of them but being told to go back and choose one anyway. Not a word about the rain or the Christmas lights or the football match. Just - Tony identified him and it was shown he was there that day. Oh well, he never said he was really sure and this is strongly constested, but it was effectively presented as a done deal.

    But the twist is, if you simply throw out Tony's evidence, you still have Megrahi at the airport looking shady at the time the bomb (allegedly) went on the plane. He didn't do anything suspicious that morning, and he was never convicted of anything other than being an accessory because he bought the clothes. You'd have to throw the case out if he didn't buy the clothes.

    But you'd be left with the implication that he was there at the crucial time, so he was still probably involved, he just got off for insufficient evidence.

    It's the Malta baggage records that prove he didn't do it, and they weren't mentioned at all.

    I find the judges' treatment of the baggage record evidence far more shocking than their treatment of Gauci actually. But the matter is hardly ever brought up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Did you notice too that they more or less denied that Tony got a substantial reward?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think most of that documentary was probably in the can when all the recent stuff happened with BP etc, and they've just done a quick edit on the last 5 minutes to make it seem more current. The first half hour did not deviate from the potted history - no investigative journalism, no questions to any of the individuals, just a series of sound bites playing toward the human angle. Did not really put much of a case for any of the dissenters - Jim Swire edited to make it look like he was a wee bit gullible and frail holding a xmas card from Megrahi.
    Conclusion: I retuned my freesat box specially to get STV, and learned nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It's one of the very few documentaries to take the line that he did it - the internet is lousy with productions casting doubt. So I suppose it was about due. Yes, the editing was appalling. Reminded me of the Babylon 5 episode "The Illusion of Truth", where a documentary film is re-edited to give a political spin entirely damning to our hero and his cause.

    I did learn a little bit, enough to make me wish I'd taped it. The story of how they identified Megrahi as Abdusamad. I'm in two minds whether the CIA knew about that all along, or whether it really wasn't known until late 90 or early 91. I lean towards the latter, actually, though I'd love to have more facts.

    The real complaint I have was that the whole thing took the line that even if he was shown not to have bought the clothes (or enough doubt cast on that to quash the conviction), he did it anyway.

    No, guys, he really didn't! You just didn't bother to mention the evidence that he couldn't have done it.

    The trouble is, all the documentaries I've watched have taken the "conspiracy theory" line that the timer fragment was fabricated, or the bomb was switched for drugs, or something like that. A simple presentation of the evidence, showing the real weaknesses and the scandal of the conclusions the Noble Lords came to is presumably too tame.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I thought it was astonishing that the STV programme stated that no money was paid to Gauci. I'm not sure how they could include that claim when there are statements all over the place confirming just how much money we're talking.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Did they say that? I must have missed it. All I saw was Marquise saying how much Tony wanted to help and how he;d never even thought about money and nobody said a word about money before the trial. And then clamming up tight when asked if he was given any afterwards.

    If all you have to do to get $2 million is to tell the truth to the bast of your ability in a murder case, there should be a lot of millionnaires out there.

    It was a hatchet job aimed at people who are interested but who don't have a detailed knowledge of the case or the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rolfe absolutely they said it. Honestly. US people and Scottish people said it. They said he got no money.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I've dropped an email to STV asking about the baggage from Luqa to Frankfurt containing one unaccompanied bag and asked if they had checked the Luqa records which showed all baggage was accompanied and collected at Frankfurt and that no unaccompanied bags were there. I've also asked why they've stated Gauci didn't get paid a vast amount of money when its public knowledge he did.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Actually, it doesn't make any difference to me if he did. He didn't tell any lies for it as far as I know, not like Giaka did. He even said, "Not the man I saw in my shop" and the ID parade.

    His evidence simply doesn't identify Megrahi in person or 7th December, and that's all there is to it.

    But telling lies about him not being paid is beyond the pale.

    ReplyDelete
  23. thats funny i posted something and its disappeared, wonder why?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thank you Bloggy! Its the second one I've lost tonight and I actually thought I was hallucinating! Phewwwwww! there is a reply from me to Suliman on another thread to a post of his which was most unpleasant and his post is now gone but my response to it is still there. I need to go and lie down now! Nite all

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bloggy i clicked on your link in your last post? It took me to an article in the Herald about monies paid to Gauci? So it was definitely there but I also got a "Service Unavailable" message here so maybe there is problem with the server or something.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Jo G: Aye that one! but i cant see it from here? The CIA must have taken control - we'll never see the prof again (he's probably a spy anyway for south africa)

    ReplyDelete
  27. I lost a post too, but I assumed I must have forgotten to hit publish after previewing. I thought I did though. Must be a glitch on teh interwebs tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  28. MISSION LOCKERBIE:

    The video, "The Lockerbie Bomber", part 1>4 can see you on STV;
    Das Video, "The Lockerbie Bomber", part 1>4 können Sie sehen auf STV;
    URL:
    http://player.stv.tv/programmes/lockerbie-bomber-sent-home-to-die/2010-08-09-2100/?yes

    ReplyDelete
  29. Thank you Edwin, that's very helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hello Lockerbie commenters,
    Sorry to comment off topic, but
    I posted the following (with some edits re: up for game vs. actually being game) in reference to the Brian Flynn article, but thought it prudent to post here as well, per my comments below and in the Brian Flynn comments in previous post, regarding difficulty w/ up to date following in comments vs. forum.

    One addition, Pr. Black, is there any way to add a forum to your blog?

    On to my previously ref'd post:

    Well, it's bed-time. No sign of Bunntamas. I live in hope that some day, one of these people who is so convinced of Megrahi's guilt will either stay and politely explain why, in terms we can follow, or take on board what we're saying and realise he's wrong.
    So far, all I see these people doing is running away.

    As I commented previously, I was not running away. Just had other things to do.
    So, it seems I got off on the wrong foot here in my original reply to Caustic re: his seeming degradation of a fellow family member, and my poor attempt to inject humor on further comments, etc...
    Thanks to Jo G and SFM for welcoming me here, in spite of my bumbbling start. And my apologies for assuming you're all men, and any other offences I may have committed, (including typos) in the name of "frantic" banter. Though it would seem most of you are neither unfamiliar nor benign to the hurling insults, offences and typos yourselves, so, I guess we're all in the same "Titanic", of hope for "survivors", so to speak.

    To give you a bit of background, I spent many years following every nook and cranny of this case. As of late, yes, Rolfe, I have remained on the fringes. This is a dark, dark world, which can take people to very dark places BTW - thank you, again to Jo for noting comments on other web sites and warnings of safety.
    I have seen a great of deal unimaginable darkness since receiving the news on 21 December, 1988. After commenting here last week, it took a bit of doing to decide whether or not to dive back in again after a bit of a hiatus.
    As noted previously, you have your beliefs, I have mine. I would welcome intellectual sparring on all of the issues we have; for and against.
    So please forgive me as I may not immediately respond whilst digging out and reviewing all my old files from day one forward.
    I do so wish this blog had a forum application. With all due respect to Pr. Black, I loathe scrolling up & down in the comments here.
    I have no intention of taking web traffic away from Pr. Black, but I would like to share more with you all in an actual forum.
    Perhaps JREF? or if you would prefer another venue, please advise.
    Obviously, there are many issues to pick apart, upon which we have just tipped the iceberg here in this comment section about one article, on a blog that has been posting for years.
    However, one point in particular I would like to jump into is the terrorist training that took place in Libya, about which Bollier, under oath, admitted to attending. I have certain declassified documents that I would like to reference in said banter. From there, I'm up for going on.
    Anyone up for more fodder?
    Name the place. I'm there.
    Best,
    ~Bunny

    ReplyDelete
  31. But back on topic here.
    Did any of you know that LAA was in charge of baggage / security for ALL of Luqa in '88?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bunny I would be very careful what you say about Luqa Airport and Air Malta. They have already sued another party who implied they were involved in this matter. They have also produced records to show their control was properly monitored.

    IN response to your complaints about the limitations of this site, this isn't a mad site like the one at the Daily Beast, where all sorts of threats can be made and people behave like thugs. This site is just fine the way it is.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hmmm... Libyan Arab Airlines - not Air Malta - in charge of security at Luqa airport? Source? Or just mixed up?

    Thanks folks for the views on this video. I haven't made the time to watch it, and now I'm glad I didn't. I'd have to follow it with some rant, which is even more time wasted.

    I hope they said Gauci wasn't paid, so they can be proven liars.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Jo ... only threat I see here is you, threatening an Air Malta lawsuit. Just sayin.

    Bunntamas is right about the limitations of this discussion format. It wasn't really designed for discussions, in fact. Fuller response at the other posting.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Jo: Rolfe absolutely they said it. Honestly. US people and Scottish people said it. They said he got no money.
    If you're referring to the bit where Marquise is interviewed, he didn't say he got NO money. He said he was never promised any money, he got no money prior to, or during the trial, and that he never asked for any money. Whether he got money after the trial, Marquise wouldn't (said he coudn't) comment.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Another point I find very interesting is the narrator said: Megrahi refused to undergo the full range of medical treatment available to him in Scotland...and began chemo upon his return to Libya
    If that is the case, how in the world can MacASSkill have made the decision he did to release him? I find that astonishing.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did any of you know that LAA was in charge of baggage / security for ALL of Luqa in '88?

    Two comments. No, and I would like to see evidence of that because I doubt that it is true. Also, even if it is true, that doesn't do anything to provide actual evidence to counter the baggage records and the evidence of the baggage handlers and Wilfrid Borg.

    No credible evidence at all has been produced to suggest that a bomb was smuggled on board at Malta. The credible evidence that has been produced weighed strongly enough in the opposite direction that Air Malta was successful in more than one legal action against parties who suggested this had happened. No evidence was produced in court. The trial court judgement stated "The absence of any explanation of the method by which the primary suitcase might have been placed on board KM180 is a major difficulty for the Crown case." During the appeal, Lord Osborne said "there is considerable and quite convincing evidence that that could not have happened."

    The Noble Lords were in a privileged position - they didn't have to defend their decision to ignore this little difficulty. Internet posters aren't so fortunate.

    ReplyDelete
  38. If you're referring to the bit where Marquise is interviewed, he didn't say he got NO money. He said he was never promised any money, he got no money prior to, or during the trial, and that he never asked for any money. Whether he got money after the trial, Marquise wouldn't (said he coudn't) comment.

    That is what I heard too. Of course Dick Marquise has said all this before ("Lockerbie Revisited" I think). The evidence however is quite clear that Paul Gauci (in fact both of them) were asking for money during the investigation, and that various nods and winks were given.

    The evidence about the reward is in the public domain. Go to page 149 of the actual document, which is page 90 of the pdf. Dick Marquise is in denial, quite frankly.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Another point I find very interesting is the narrator said: Megrahi refused to undergo the full range of medical treatment available to him in Scotland...and began chemo upon his return to Libya
    If that is the case, how in the world can MacASSkill have made the decision he did to release him? I find that astonishing.


    First, if you want to have a civil discussion, I would recommend you drop this puerile MacASSkill thing. It makes you sound like a particularly silly schoolboy.

    The best place to look as regards the commencement of Megrahi's chemotherapy is here. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0085963.pdf

    Page 10 of the document, page 15 of the pdf. "Mr. al-Megrahi spoke of his circumstances and the likelihood that he will need to commence chemotherapy soon. He stated that he needs his family's support as he goes through the treatment...."

    Page 17 of the pdf, page 2 of Megrahi's hand-written letter. "It is likely that I will have to commence chemotherapy soon. That is something that no one would look foreward (sic) to. I need my family for support...."

    There is absolutely no suggestion at all that he was refusing chemotherapy unless he was returned to Libya. He was requesting to return to Libya to have his chemotherapy there, which is an entirely different matter.

    If the STV programme implied something different, then that is just one more example of the slanted and biassed production decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  40. As I have mentioned previously on both this blog and that of Caustic Logic's, like it or not, as with all military organisations, those who perpetrate acts of violence of the type under discussion here are highly trained, professional technicians, who regard their chosen vocation as an art form. Perfection to them is the success of the final act. They are not half-wits who hope that they will, in the face of considerable odds stacked against them, be able to achieve their ends by reaching their goal via the lunacy of transferring their canvass, unaccompanied, through no fewer than three airports!

    Furthermore, the temperatures at the heart of a Semtex explosion are in the region of three and a half to four thousand degrees Celsius. Quite sufficient to vaporise anything in the immediate vicinity. Remarkably robust these clothes of Mr Gauchi's, not to mention Mr Bollier's circuit boards (untested for explosive resides), don't you think?

    It is of course far too much to hope for that the award winning Levy/Ferguson documentary 'Lockerbie Revisited' might one day be screened for the benefit of the UK public. No surprise there though.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rolfe,
    Thanks for the links. I've read them already. Got it. I'll drop the MacASSkill thing. I thought it was simply an easier way of noting (without going into detail) points like Jo's (in addition to others), in reference to MacAskill, i.e., ...that he treats those who want major questions answered with such ridicule is quite disgraceful. His stupidity at the time in having meetings with Megrahi has only raised more questions. His part in the dropping of the appeal hasn't helped either.
    My point about Megrahi's refusal of chemo was not about his mental state, or need start chemo soon, being w/ family, etc. It was about MacAskill's decision making process in the release. I do recognize that the media tend to blow things out of proportion, and indeed do have a tendancy to slant and mis-state. Regardless, my question is, Megrahi was diagnosed w/ cancer in (approx) Oct. of 2008. More than a FULL year prior to the decision to release. WHY was he not treated with chemo during that time? Had he undergone chemo while still in Scottish prison, and had MacAskill taken this into consideration (again, I don't know for sure if he did or not, do you? I haven't seen anything to this effect) regarding life expectancy, would his life expectancy been different? Why didn't any of the Dr.s mention this? If they had, might have MacAskill's decision to release been different?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Jo ... only threat I see here is you, threatening an Air Malta lawsuit. Just sayin.

    Caustic.......what's the point there? I reminded certain people that Air Malta already threatened to sue those who implied they were involved in assisting unaccompanied luggage on to that plane. They didn't. They produced records to prove it. And the other party settled with them out of court.

    STV may find they have to withdraw the same statement they made in the programme last night and apologise for making it.

    The format of this site is just fine as far as I'm aware. I don't like sites like the Beast or some of the others where language is appalling and manners are non-existent. I favour robust debate but not offensive rubbish.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jo, for what it's worth, I appreciate your suggestions and recommendations re: other sites, safety, and warnings about possible litigious matters.
    Regarding my previous recommendation about taking up a debate elswhere, I didn't intend to imply that it be taken up at the Beast. I agree, not the best spot, and the comments section is the same as here. My point was that it is difficult (for me, at least) to scroll up and down, where it may be more easy to converse in a forum like JREF. But it seems you all are content to banter here. So, I'll do my best to (try to) get it right. After all, isn't that what we're all trying for?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bunntamas, I have bumped a thread on the JREF forum you might care to respond to, should you choose to join.

    If you don't, I will try to continue to discuss here, in spite of the unsuitable format. However, I'm not interested in banter, so if that's what you want, you can stick it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. attn. Quincey Riddle

    ... not to mention Mr Bollier's circuit boards (untested for explosive resides), don't you think?
    The MST-13 Circuit board (PT/35) consists of 8 layers fibre glass trellis and with an explosion with Semtex is not powdered !
    The Fragment (PT/35) was only carbonized and becoms black colored sooty.

    by Edwin Bollier, MEBO Ltd. URL: www.lockerbie.ch

    ReplyDelete
  46. I'm not interested in banter, so if that's what you want, you can stick it
    My, my Rolfe, what a kind invitation. Perhaps you've misconstrued my semantics re: banter.
    ban·ter
    –noun
    1. an exchange of light, playful, teasing remarks; good-natured raillery.
    –verb (used with object)
    2. to address with banter; chaff.
    –verb (used without object)
    3. to use banter.
    My reference to banter above was more to the effect of #1."good natured raillery"
    Good lord, man. Lighten up. This is a heavy enough topic as it is.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Rolfe, what's the name of the thread you "bumped"?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Did Abdelbaset al-Megrahi blow up Pan Am 103?
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169917

    Bedtime now though. And if I don't do some packing for going on holiday on Saturday, I'm dead meat.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Sorry, I forgot. Post 74.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nighty night Rolfe. Safe travels.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Rolfe, Post 74? Are you sure? There are, at last count, 523 posts on that string.

    ReplyDelete
  52. No, post 74 is the last, I double checked.

    This link should get the actual post.
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6213127

    ReplyDelete
  53. Sorry for the "banter" but I can't help but notice in my comments above, roughly minutes apart, the date switched from 10 Aug. to 11 Aug. My computer clock / calendar here still says 10 Aug. I do recognize it's the time diff. But can't help to think... I'm posting in the future. Ahh.... if it were all that easy.
    Good night Scotland.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Jo ... only threat I see here is you, threatening an Air Malta lawsuit. Just sayin.

    Caustic.......what's the point there? I reminded certain people that Air Malta already threatened to sue those who implied they were involved in assisting unaccompanied luggage on to that plane. They didn't. They produced records to prove it. And the other party settled with them out of court.


    Sorry, came out wrong. You said something about threats, which I'm not sensing as much as you seem to be, tho I do agree the tone at that one site (and in the friggin USA) is an affront to a civilized person who knows Megrahi is most likely innocent. I know lawsuit wasn't a real threat, just a funny way to suggest a chill pill, but that is again in my reading of your text, where context and tones of voice can be imagined, etc.

    so basically, sorry never mind?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Jo ... only threat I see here is you, threatening an Air Malta lawsuit. Just sayin.

    Caustic.......what's the point there? I reminded certain people that Air Malta already threatened to sue those who implied they were involved in assisting unaccompanied luggage on to that plane. They didn't. They produced records to prove it. And the other party settled with them out of court.


    Sorry, came out wrong. You said something about threats, which I'm not sensing as much as you seem to be, tho I do agree the tone at that one site (and in the friggin USA) is an affront to a civilized person who knows Megrahi is most likely innocent. I know lawsuit wasn't a real threat, just a funny way to suggest a chill pill, but that is again in my reading of your text, where context and tones of voice can be imagined, etc.

    so basically, sorry never mind?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I think we could use more banter, actually. And triple-digit comment posts are awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  57. There's obviously some sort of glitch still happening in the blog software. I see several comments interpolated among those I read last night, which didn't appear to me then.

    We've got several topics interleaving in this thread, which illustrates once again the problems of trying to have a forum discussion in a blog comments section.

    Bunntamas, we've been over the compassionate release several times in other threads, and the main suspicion surfacing has been that Kenny MacAskill was maybe over-keen to get the thing pushed through so that he could expedite the process of leaning on Megrahi to drop the appeal. I don't think he behaved well, but my reason for that is that I suspect he used the three-month prognosis to imply to Megrahi that he wouldn't live to see the appeal concluded anyway, so he might as well drop it to expedite his return to Libya.

    You may criticise his behavious for other reasons, but there isn't the slightest shred of evidence that he was in any way swayed by commercial considerations when taking the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Quincey Riddle, I agree with much of what you say. We've already been over the implausibility of the alleged plot as well, of course. However, I have to say that although I once had deep suspicions regarding the authenticity of the Maltese clothes, I have discounted these. I simply cannot see any plausible scenario in which these clothes (or at least the seven items mentioned by Tony Gauci in his first interview, which of course don't include the Slalom shirt) were planted at any time after the disaster.

    Thus, on first principles, the possibility that some fragments of the radio at least survived by being blasted into the cloth can't be discounted. Is it possible that a bit of the IED (the timer fragment) survived in a similar way? I still have an open mind about that, despite Dr. Wyatt's tests. I'd put the timer fragment in the "pretty improbable and suuspiciously convenient" bracket, rather than completely impossible.

    I'd also comment that if anyone did plant that timer fragment, they were perfectly capable of ensuring it came up positive for explosives residues while they were at it. Or at least that it had been in contact with playing cards....

    The real boggle moment for me is the front page of the radio manual. A few tiny wads of paper blasted into the cloth along with the radio fragments that carried them there, again I can get my brain round. That piece of paper that Deccy Horton is *alleged* to have picked up in her field? Er, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rolfe,

    The court had to arrive at a judgement 'beyond reasonable doubt' not 'on the balance of probabilities'. I am not speculating on whether or not anything was planted or otherwise, I am simply suggesting that there are serious question marks concerning the circuit board fragment and the entire Malta link with Gauci: suggesting that, just to take these two items alone, a verdict based on the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' was insufficiently met.

    Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Caustic.......I'm seeing the calls about the lay out of this blog but I disagree with them. I'm happy with the format.

    As far as I can tell the blog is about events since the trial and developments on a daily basis. I really don't want to see anything like some of the stuff I've seen lately, on other sites, here. It wouldn't work. The level of respect present here in recent days has deteriorated and at some points has been absent altogether. There is never any need for that and I'm uncomfortable when it goes that way.

    I accept too that some people like to learn more and more of the technical stuff but ultimately that won't help the case out there. It isn't about us. Its about a terrible wrong done and the fight to put it right. My favourite parts of this site are the letters and comments which come supporting the calls for a full investigation. I am always delighted to see another one posted by Prof Black. It always lifts me because I see something else out there that people will be reading in their newspapers.

    My priority is to do my bit to keep pressure on politicians and the media in order to get an investigation. For that, for me, is the only thing that will change anything otherwise we could sit here for another twenty odd years talking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. And on the monies paid to the Gaucis, if this was anything remotely like a serious documentary involving serious journalists STV would not have allowed the police and other investigators to smirk their way through questions about how much the Gaucis were paid later. It is a question that needed an answer and the answer wasn't given. So for me it is indeed another glaring inaccuracy along with the misinformation about Air Malta flying that bomb to Frankfurt in an unaccompanied bag.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Just to clarify, I'm not judging anyone's way of posting. But here's a thought I've had lately. Go and look at the letters recently posted on the site and then count the comments. Look at posts about the play at the Fringe. Its as if these are lightweight matters and I just don't think they are. There is another wonderful selection of letters today. They are all taking the view that there is something wrong and we need to keep those messages out there, in newspapers, if we are to keep the pressure on.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jo: I like this format too, and can work with it. "Beast" style format has its pluses as well, and a discussion forum has its own more similar to this. From a technical PoV, as far as how comments are arranged. Not about the content.

    As far as some posts' comments staying low, it's largely just what takes off. This show doesn't deserve this many comments, we just keep going all over, sometimes bickering, etc. There is something else too, posts that aren't controversial or juicy. Or for whatever reason, people aren't moved to say much. I've noticed it too.

    Rolfe: "I simply cannot see any plausible scenario in which these clothes (or at least the seven items mentioned by Tony Gauci in his first interview, which of course don't include the Slalom shirt) were planted at any time after the disaster."

    Sorry, my fault. I had meant to weigh in on that question. I have a pet notion, down some rabbit hole, that all the tangled radio bits and clothes were all faked together, just to point at Malta/Libya as they so conveniently did. The clothes existing is not QUITE as problematic to me as that within the radio box, but again, a relatively high convenience-to-plausibility ratio.

    I haven't laid it all out, but the general notion makes sense in the context, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The court had to arrive at a judgement 'beyond reasonable doubt' not 'on the balance of probabilities'. I am not speculating on whether or not anything was planted or otherwise, I am simply suggesting that there are serious question marks concerning the circuit board fragment and the entire Malta link with Gauci: suggesting that, just to take these two items alone, a verdict based on the standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt' was insufficiently met.

    On that basis, I entirely take your point. Mind you, the reasonable doubt in that department is a fair way down the scale from the reasonable doubt that the clothes were purchased on 7th December, or that Megrahi was the man who made that purchase, or that tray B8849 at Frankfurt was the "primary suitcase", but it all adds up.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The level of respect present here in recent days has deteriorated and at some points has been absent altogether. There is never any need for that and I'm uncomfortable when it goes that way.

    That's one of the reasons (apart from the much more manageable forum format) that I like the JREF. The moderation prevents any personal attacks on other members and bad behaviour of most kinds. You play nice or you don't play.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I've just watched the STV documentary on their website.

    It looks to me as if it was made for the American market.

    It lacks the objectivity and questioning style that a good documentary ought to have.

    Too many completely false assertions are made and too few questions are asked.

    It's not what we need. We need a comprehensive examination of all credible information, not just a prosecutorial jumble of unquestioned 'facts' being put together to try to justify an unsustainable conclusion.

    With an unquestioning media (some notable exceptions to that pattern do exist!) and with a largely supine body politic, we are unlikely to get the wide ranging public Inquiry which we badly need.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Perconter, it was made for the Scottish Market, it was re-cycled claptrap. STV aren't a rich outfit. I thought it was dire in terms of "quality journalism". Any decent journalist would not have allowed those police people or Marquise away with getting out of stating if Gauci was paid. It was pathetic. Nice to see letters in the Scottish Press today pointing out just how much he got.

    ReplyDelete
  68. In part 3, at around 05' 48", the FBI chap wriggles and squirms on the matter of bribes to Gauchi and then says:
    "Whether he got something: I can't comment on. I'm not allowed to comment".

    That is a very clear non-denial of the bribe. If Gauci has not been bribed, neither a priori nor a posteriori, then there is no reason for the FBI not to say so.

    The programme really should have pressed that point.

    I noted another example of the programme makers failing to follow up a point. An American bereaved father in an interview said "What I'd like to see is that much evidence that it was somebody else". His hand gesture showed a miniscule gap between thumb and forefinger to indicate a miniscule quantity.

    An honest and knowledgable interviewer would immeidately have riposted with half a dozen items of evidence, such as:

    Abu Talb having been found in possession of clothes from Mary's House;

    Abu Talb having been present on Malta on the rainy day of the football match and before the Crimbo lights went on;

    Abu Talb having circled Dec 21 on his calendar;

    Abu Talb subsequently changing his nom de guerre to Abu Intehkam, which just happens to be the name of the Revenge operation which Iran paid the PFLP-GC to perpetrate;

    The Autumn Leaves bombs having a barostatically initiated timer which corresponds quite extraordarily closely to the timing of the explosion just South of Lockerbie;
    etc; etc; etc.

    Similarly, when the FBI guy claimed that Libya had a motive for a revenge attack following the bombing of the two cities and the murder of Gadaffi's little girl, the interviewer should immediately have queried why former PM Thatcher has said that the "much vaunted" retaliation by Libya did not happen.

    It is the sheer crappiness of the 'journalism' in this programme which indicates that it is made for the American market.

    Americans tend not to be intellectually curious and they tend to believe what they're told to believe. That's a major flaw in their tertiary education system and is the reason for the enormous qualitative difference between a graduate of a UK university and an American college.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Abu Talb subsequently changing his nom de guerre to Abu Intehkam, which just happens to be the name of the Revenge operation which Iran paid the PFLP-GC to perpetrate;

    Now that's something I didn't know. Do you have a source for that?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Agreed, that's an interesting point if Abu Talb changed his name to that. I'm open to his involvement, but as the 'mystery shopper' I can't yet accept it. I don't think it was proven he was there on the 23rd. he's also too young and too short to be the 6' plus 50-year old Libyan. His clothes weren't traced to Mary's House that I know of.

    Some points have been made to the effect of some of these, but mostly by David Leppard et al., during a time investigators wanted Abu Talb. Gauci was induced by presumably slanted photo spread to point at Talb and even say he was similar to the buyer. Again, at a time when investigators were trying for that, as they later would with Megrahi to the same useful effect.

    Dec 21 on the calendar:
    It was later reported this was the date his sister was due to deliver a baby, and the Zeist Judges decided the actual delivery happened just past midnight on the 22nd , giving him an approximate alibi for the planting of the bomb at Malta.Presumably he was involved in the process, maybe just driving - it wasn't explained in detail. Compared to Megrahi, they gave the Egyptian the benefit of the doubt, but still I'm inclined to doubt the usual version of his involvement.

    http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2010/01/evidence-reconsidered-abu-talb.html

    But I admit I'm a little hazy on much of this, and he did reside in Sweden and had links to Abu Elias and the PFLP-GC cell, some make of Maltese clothes, etc ...

    But I agree, the "this much evidence" thing was ridiculous. 38-minute detonation, revenge promises, payments, bombs, a missing bomb, the break-in, the Bedford cases, the lucky bomb placement near the skin, the disappeared Frankfurt records, the "anomalies" surrounding all the crucial physical evidence, the absolutely fevered cover-up mode and evident framing of Libya ...

    All these could have one reality uniting them as causative factors, or could all be pointless coincidences hanging on the side of this flimsy Libyan guilt construct.

    ReplyDelete